Burton v. Woods, 2020 ONCJ 158

CITATION: Burton v. Woods , 2020 ONCJ 158 DATE: March 23, 2020 Court File Number: 59-18 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE At Orangeville BETWEEN: Karen Eileen Burton Applicant And Bobby John Woods Respondent ENDORSEMENT Heard: March 23 rd , 2020 Released: March 23 rd , 2020 Justice B. E. Pugsley Appearances: None – heard in chambers 1 . The parties are the parents of a single child, Aiden John Alvin Woods (male)(DOB: […], 2010). 2 . They had a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice at Orangeville. The Respondent, Mr. Woods, lost the trial. Justice P. Clay of this court ordered that the APPLICANT, Ms.

Burton, have custody of the child. Mr. Woods had very clear and quite limited access. 3 . Mr. Woods has appealed the trial judgment to the Superior Court of Justice at Orangeville (Court File Number 3/20). He has asked that Justice Clay’s trial judgment be stayed – paused in other words – while the appeal is being heard. He seeks to reverse the custody ordered by Judge Clay on appeal. That appeal is in its early stages. 4 . The Superior Court of Justice has not yet heard Mr. Wood’s motion to stay the trial judgment.

That means that Justice Clay’s order made at the end of the trial is still the law between the parties. Ms. Burton has custody of Aiden and Mr. Woods has limited access, essentially to continue if he follows the detailed directions of Judge Clay made in his trial judgment. 5 . Mr. Woods has decided to continue to represent himself. 6 . Mr. Woods has tried to have this court deal with issues around what he says is the Applicant’s failure to follow the judgment.

These issues have no merit and as the matter is pending in the Superior Court and these issues are identical to what he has asked that court to do he has been directed to raise those meritless complaints in that court. 7 . In the interim the Covid19 crisis has severely interfered with the regular day to day process of the courts, both here and in the SCJ. 8 . It appears that Mr. Woods has decided to take advantage of the current world-wide crisis to take self help remedies. 9 . The lawyer for Ms. Burton has brought on an emergency motion in the Superior Court at Orangeville. Mr.

Woods has kept Aiden against the final order made by Judge Clay – an order that is entirely in effect until the Superior Court says it is not either by a stay of proceeding and/or by varying the judgment during the appeal. 10 . In the present emergency circumstances and because the Appellant’s motion to stay has not yet been decided, the Superior Court has transferred the emergency motion to be heard by me, today. 11 . The issue is therefore whether there is an emergency and if so, what the remedy should be. 12 . Ms. Burton’s material describes that Mr.

Woods has blatantly kept Aiden when the order of the court has required him to return Aiden. Further, he continues to assert that the order made by Judge Clay is without any power. Mr. Woods belief is incorrect and is not founded on any legal basis. Until the SCJ changes Judge Clay’s order that order dated December 13 th , 2019, is the only valid

order, period. 13 . In short, Ms. Burton has custody of Aiden and Mr. Woods has limited access. 14 . Mr. Woods has kept Aiden after access and has stated that Judge Clay’s order is null and void. This is incorrect and Mr. Woods knows that his assertion is false. He has decided to disobey a court order. This cannot be permitted to continue. 15 . Since the SCJ has transferred this emergency matter to the Ontario Court of Justice (which in and of itself makes the last line of paragraph 12 clear) this court will deal with the emergency review of this order.

Because of the current Covid 19 emergency this court is not entertaining any matters involving personal attendances. The courthouse is virtually closed to stop the spread of the pandemic. Materials will be received in writing by scanned documents and each party will file a scanned memo of written submissions. 16 . The retention of Aiden in Mr. Woods care after access requires a stern response. None of the respondent’s recent past behavior suggests that he can be trusted to follow the orders of the court.

Aiden must be apprehended by the police and the local CAS immediately and returned to the care of the Applicant, Ms. Burton. Pending further court order made after today in the OCJ or SCJ, all access by Aiden to Mr. Woods is suspended effective immediately. 17 . I make the following court order without notice to Mr. Woods: 1. The child of the parties, Aiden John Alvin Woods (male)(DOB: […], 2010), shall be immediately returned to the custody of the Applicant, Mother, Karen Eileen Burton; 2.

The Ontario Provincial Police, the Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitou, and all other police officers and Children’s Aid Societies, are directed and required to forthwith apprehend the said child from the Respondent (Father) Bobby John Woods and to return him to the care of the said Applicant (Mother). Entry into a private residence to give effect to this order is authorized. 3. The Respondent (Father)’s access to the said child pursuant to the final order of Justice P. Clay dated December 13 th , 2019, is hereby suspended pending further court order. 4.

This order shall be placed before the court in chambers for review on Wednesday, April 1 st , 2020. Both parties may file scanned materials via the Family court email address (available from the Orangeville trial coordinator) to be received on the following schedule: the Respondent (Father)’s material on or before Monday March 30 th , 2020 at 12 noon; any reply by the Applicant (Mother) on or before Tuesday March 31 st at 4:30 pm; and both partiers shall make written, emailed submissions upon the same time frame as set out above. Both parties should set out in detail the access

schedule they are proposing for Aiden while the matter is dealt with by the Superior Court appeal. 5. A copy of this endorsement shall be forwarded by the court to the following entities:

a) the intake officer, CAS of Sudbury and Manitou;

b) the officer in charge of the local OPP detachment having coverage of the Respondent’s home at […], Ontario; and,

c) the local Justice of the SCJ at Orangeville for her information. Signed B. E. Pugsley, J. _______________________________________ Justice B. E. Pugsley OCJ at Orangeville