Case information
Conduct a refined search of the Supreme Court of Canada database to obtain details on the status of a matter before the Court.
39123
Sylvia H.C.C. Richardson v. Mark Edward Richardson
(Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave)
Docket
Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.
| Date | Proceeding | Filed By (if applicable) |
|---|---|---|
| 2021-11-18 | Appeal closed | |
| 2021-10-28 | Transcript received, 97 pages | |
| 2021-10-13 | Formal judgment sent to the registrar of the court of appeal and all parties | |
| 2021-10-13 | Judgment on appeal and notice of deposit of judgment sent to all parties | |
| 2021-10-13 |
Judgment on the appeal rendered, CJ Mo Ka Côt Br Row Mar Kas Ja, The appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C66918, 2019 ONCA 983, dated December 13, 2019, was heard on October 13, 2021, and the Court on that day delivered the following judgment orally: KASIRER J. — The dispute regarding the custody of the parties’ two children involved in this appeal turns on a proper appreciation of their best interest. When leave to appeal was granted, among the matters in dispute was whether the parties’ 16-year-old daughter and their 10-year-old son should live principally with the appellant in Ottawa or with the respondent in Niagara. On October 6, 2021 — one week before this hearing —, the parties wrote a joint letter to the Registrar to advise the Court of what they described as “changes with respect to the children that affect the record in this matter”. These included a statement that the parties’ daughter has resided in Ottawa for over a year and that, given her age, the respondent does not intend to take further steps to enforce the trial judge’s order regarding that child. We note further that the parties have not filed a motion for new evidence before this Court regarding the current best interests of the children. In the unusual circumstances of this appeal, and given the state of the record which the parties acknowledge as incomplete, we are of the unanimous view that the appeal should be dismissed, without costs before this Court. The appropriate forum for identifying and resolving whatever ongoing dispute may subsist between the parties is the Superior Court where, should the legal requirements be met, a variation order relating to custody and access could be sought. Given the tenor of the parties’ joint letter and the state of the record, we are unable to provide meaningful guidance on the best interests of the children in the circumstances. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, without costs before this Court. Dismissed, without costs |
|
| 2021-10-13 |
Hearing of the appeal, 2021-10-13, CJ Mo Ka Côt Br Row Mar Kas Ja Judgment rendered |
|
| 2021-10-08 | Appellant's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-10-08) | Sylvia H.C.C. Richardson |
| 2021-10-08 | Respondent's condensed book, (Book Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-10-08) | Mark Edward Richardson |
| 2021-10-07 | Respondent's book of authorities, (Book Form), Supplementary brief of authority, Completed on: 2021-10-07, (Printed version filed on 2021-10-07) | Mark Edward Richardson |
| 2021-10-06 |
Correspondence received from, (Letter Form), Rule 92.1 Counsel representing the Appellant and Respondent are writing jointly pursuant to Rule 92.1 to advise the Court of changes with respect to children that affect the record in this matter., (Printed version due on 2021-10-14) |
Sylvia H.C.C. Richardson |
| 2021-09-15 |
Notice of appearance, Shawn Duguay and Lauren Wilson will appear before the Court. Shawn Duguay will present oral argument. |
Sylvia H.C.C. Richardson |
| 2021-09-13 |
Notice of appearance, Michael Zalev, Aaron Franks and Samantha Eisen will appear before the Court. Michael Zalev and Aaron Franks will present oral argument. |
Mark Edward Richardson |
| 2021-06-28 | Notice of hearing sent to parties | |
| 2021-06-28 |
Appeal hearing scheduled, 2021-10-13 Judgment rendered |
|
| 2021-06-14 | Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2021-06-14) | Mark Edward Richardson |
| 2021-06-14 | Respondent's record, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-06-30, (Printed version filed on 2021-06-14) | Mark Edward Richardson |
| 2021-06-14 | Respondent's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-06-30, (Printed version filed on 2021-06-14) | Mark Edward Richardson |
| 2021-05-05 | Letter advising the parties of tentative hearing date and filing deadlines (Leave granted) | |
| 2021-04-19 | Certificate of counsel (attesting to record), (Letter Form), (Printed version due on 2021-04-26) | Sylvia H.C.C. Richardson |
| 2021-04-19 | Appellant's record, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-05-03, (Printed version filed on 2021-04-19) | Sylvia H.C.C. Richardson |
| 2021-04-19 | Appellant's factum, (Book Form), Completed on: 2021-05-03, (Printed version filed on 2021-04-19) | Sylvia H.C.C. Richardson |
| 2021-02-22 | Notice of appeal, Completed on: 2021-05-03, (Printed version due on 2021-03-01) | Sylvia H.C.C. Richardson |
| 2021-01-22 | Copy of formal judgment sent to Registrar of the Court of Appeal and all parties | |
| 2021-01-22 | Judgment on leave sent to the parties | |
| 2021-01-22 | Judgment on leave sent to the parties | |
| 2021-01-21 |
Judgment of the Court on the application for leave to appeal, The motion for extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C66918, 2019 ONCA 983, dated December 13, 2019, is granted with costs in the cause. Granted, with costs in the cause |
|
| 2021-01-21 |
Decision on motion to extend time to file and /or serve the leave application, See judgment on application. Granted |
|
| 2020-11-30 | All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, for consideration by the Court | |
| 2020-11-30 | Submission of motion to extend time to file and/ or serve the leave application, for consideration by the Court | |
| 2020-08-05 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form) | Mark Edward Richardson |
| 2020-08-05 | Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), Completed on: 2020-08-05 | Mark Edward Richardson |
| 2020-04-28 | Letter acknowledging receipt of an incomplete application for leave to appeal and without formal Court of Appeal order, FILE OPENED 2020/04/28 | |
| 2020-04-07 | Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form) | Sylvia H.C.C. Richardson |
| 2020-04-07 | Motion to extend the time to file and or serve the application for leave to appeal, (Included in the application for leave to appeal), Completed on: 2020-04-07 | Sylvia H.C.C. Richardson |
| 2020-04-07 | Application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), CA Order missing-rec'd 2020/05/05, Completed on: 2020-05-05 | Sylvia H.C.C. Richardson |
Parties
Please note that in the case of closed files, the “Status” column reflects the status of the parties at the time of the proceedings. For more information about the proceedings and about the dates when the file was open, please consult the docket of the case in question.
Main parties
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Richardson, Sylvia H.C.C. | Appellant | Active |
v.
| Name | Role | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Richardson, Mark Edward | Respondent | Active |
Counsel
Party: Richardson, Sylvia H.C.C.
Counsel
160 Elgin Street
Suite 2600
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1C3
Telephone: (613) 783-8969
FAX: (613) 563-9869
Email: shawn.duguay@gowlingwlg.com
Agent
160 Elgin Street
Suite 2600
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1C3
Telephone: (613) 786-8695
FAX: (613) 788-3509
Email: lynne.watt@gowlingwlg.com
Party: Richardson, Mark Edward
Counsel
Samantha J. Eisen
Michael Zalev
393, University Avenue
Suite 2200
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1E6
Telephone: (416) 862-9888
FAX: (416) 862-2142
Email: afranks@epsteincole.com
Agent
100- 340 Gilmour Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0R3
Telephone: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 102
FAX: (613) 695-8580
Email: mfmajor@supremeadvocacy.ca
Summary
Keywords
Family law - Custody - Judgments and orders - Reasons - Trial judge making custody order contrary to terms of minutes of settlement signed by parties during course of trial - In family law proceedings involving parenting issues, when is it appropriate for courts to reject parties’ reasonable settlement agreements, and what are the standards for rejecting such settlements? - When, if ever, is it appropriate for a trial judge to continue to sit on a trial after being privy to the parties’ settlement positions?<br><br>
Summary
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.
The parties were married in 2003 and divorced in 2015. They have both since remarried. Their daughter was born in 2005 and they had a son in 2011. They all resided in the Niagara region until 2017. In 2015, the parties participated in an assessment pursuant to s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12. Ms. Richardson was seeking to have the children move with her to Ottawa, where she planned to relocate. The assessor recommended that the children stay in the Niagara region and that the parties have joint custody. The parties accepted this recommendation and settled the matter pursuant to a consent order in 2016. At the time both parties had residences in the Niagara region and Ms. Richardson was dividing her time between the Niagara region and the Ottawa area, where she had a home with her new spouse.
In July 2017, Ms. Richardson sold her Niagara residence and moved to Ottawa. She brought a motion to change the consent order on the basis that it would be in the children’s best interests to reside primarily with her in Ottawa. The parties could not settle the matter and it proceeded to trial. On the third day of the trial, counsel for the parties presented a proposed settlement to the trial judge that provided that the children would move from their home in the Niagara region to Ottawa to live primarily with their mother. The trial judge did not accept the terms of the minutes of settlement and stated that he wanted to hear all of the evidence. The trial proceeded. The trial judge concluded that the children would not relocate to Ottawa. This decision was upheld by a majority of the Court of Appeal.
Lower court rulings
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
FS 102/16, 2019 ONSC 2175
Trial judge rejecting terms of minutes of settlement and ordering children’s primary residence to be with father
Court of Appeal for Ontario
C66918; 2019 ONCA 983
Applicant’s appeal dismissed
Memorandums of argument on application for leave to appeal
The memorandums of argument on an application for leave to appeal will be posted here 30 days after leave to appeal has been granted unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of the memorandum by filing out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a memorandum of argument or want to use a memorandum of argument, please contact the author of the memorandum of argument directly. Their name appears at the end of the memorandum of argument. The contact information for counsel is found in the “Counsel” tab of this page.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available
Related links
Factums on appeal
The factums of the appellant, the respondent and the intervener will be posted here at least 2 weeks before the hearing unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of factums by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a factum or want permission to use a factum, please contact the author of the factum directly. Their contact information appears on the first page of each factum.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available