Green v Green, 2022 NSSC 126

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Green v Green, 2022 NSSC 126 Date: 20220505 Docket: SFH No. 1201-071597 Registry: Halifax Between: Kelsey Green Applicant v. Heidi Green Respondent Endorsement on Adjournment Request Judge: The Honourable Justice Theresa Forgeron Submissions: Decision: Counsel: April 22, 2022 and April 29, 2022 May 5, 2022 Godfred Chongatera, for Kelsey Green, Applicant Heidi Green, Respondent, self-represented By the Court: Issue [ 1 ] Mr. Green seeks to adjourn the hearing scheduled for May 30, 31, and June 2, 2022. This endorsement will set out my reasons for rejecting Mr. Green’s adjournment request. File History

[ 2 ] The parties are divorced spouses with three children. They have appeared before me on many occasions. After a lengthy and contested trial, I rendered my divorce decision, as reported at KG v HG , 2021 NSSC 43 . [ 3 ] Much of the divorce trial centered on parenting issues, including the cause of the strained relationship between Mr. Green and the children. Although I identified multiple factors that contributed to the strained relationship, I categorically dismissed the alienation claim espoused by Mr.

Green. [ 4 ] My divorce decision also directed that each of the parties and the children participate in therapy, with defined and specified goals, as outlined in my decision at paras 104 to 114. The parties were given seven months to successfully complete the therapeutic goals. If the therapeutic goals were achieved, then a more typical parenting arrangement would be ordered. [ 5 ] After the CRO issued, Mr. Green sought an extension of time to appeal my divorce decision.

The Court of Appeal denied his motion for an extension: Green v Green, 2021 NSCA 61 ; with leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada denied: Green v. Green, [2021] SCCA No. 454 (File No: 39991). [ 6 ] On April 29, 2021, I issued my costs decision, which is reported at KG v HG, 2021 NSSC 142 . [ 7 ] The review hearing to assess therapeutic progress was scheduled for September 27, 2021. It did not proceed; it was rescheduled to December 6, 2021. The December 6 th review hearing was soon reassigned so I could decide the recusal motion that Mr.

Green subsequently filed. [ 8 ] Unfortunately, the recusal motion was not completed on December 6 th because one of Mr. Green’s witnesses was unavailable and had not been properly served. The recusal motion was adjourned and then completed on January 19, 2022. On February 1, 2022, I denied Mr. Green’s recusal motion by decision reported at Green v Green, 2022 NSSC 30 . [ 9 ] I next heard Mr. Green’s motion for state-funded counsel which was scheduled for February 24, 2022. Mr. Green did not file financial documents as directed to support his motion. At Mr.

Green’s request, the hearing was adjourned and rescheduled to March 31, 2022. Mr. Green asked to adjourn a second time. His request was denied, as reported at Green v Green , 2022 NSSC 105 . Mr. Green did not appear for the motion hearing. I proceeded in his absence. On April 13, 2022, I denied Mr. Green’s motion for state-funded counsel, as reported at Green v Green , 2022 NSSC 106 . [ 10 ] The review hearing to determine therapeutic progress is scheduled for May May 30, 31 and June 2, 2022. In addition to the review, both parties seek to vary the provisions of the CRO.

Their variation applications will be heard in conjunction with the review hearing. [ 11 ] In contemplation of the upcoming contested hearing, a pretrial conference was scheduled for April 20, 2022. The parties were directed to provide written and oral submissions on two preliminary evidentiary issues. Written submissions were due on April 13, 2022. Oral submissions were to be provided at the pretrial conference. Ms. Green filed her materials as directed. Mr. Green did not. During the hearing, I extended Mr. Green’s filing deadline to April 22, 2021.

On May 2, 2022, I rendered my decision on the two preliminary evidentiary issues, which is reported as Green v Green , 2022 NSSC 120 . [ 12 ] Mr. Green recently retained Mr. Chongatera to represent him. He seeks an adjournment of the review and variation hearing. Adjournment Request [ 13 ] By letter dated April 21, 2022, and received April 22, 2022, counsel for Mr. Green sought an adjournment of the hearing. Counsel for Mr. Green stated that he is not available on the scheduled dates, having made prior commitments before being contacted by Mr. Green to represent him.

Objection to Adjournment Request [ 14 ] By letter dated April 29, 2022, Ms. Green objected to an adjournment for reasons which include the following: • Mr. Green had ample time to prepare and is seeking an adjournment to manipulate the court process. Mr. Green consistently fails to meet court ordered filing deadlines and then seeks adjournments in an effort to further delay the proceeding. This adjournment request is another example of Mr. Green’s strategy. • The matter was originally scheduled for September 2021. A further delay is not in the best interests of the children.

All issues should be finalized for the sake of the family. Mr. Green continues to report her to authorities which necessitates further involvement with police and child protection workers. Her life and the children’s lives continue to be disrupted. Turmoil is not in the children’s best interests. In addition, the travel issue must also be decided because Mr. Green refuses to sign the children’s passport applications. Ms. Green and the children want to travel to the US for part of their summer vacation. • A further delay will cause potential prejudice to the therapists’ ability to recall.

For example, the therapists completed their treatment before September 2021 in conformity with the CRO (Parenting). That was about eight months ago. Another delay will extend the time period between therapy and testimony, which may impact recall. Decision [ 15 ] I am required to weigh three factors to determine a contested adjournment request – prejudice to the applicant if an adjournment is not granted; prejudice to the respondent if the adjournment is granted; and prejudice to the public.

Because the hearing involves parenting issues, I must filter these factors through the lens of the children’s best interests. Prejudice to Mr. Green

[ 16 ] If the adjournment is not granted, Mr. Green will not be represented by Mr. Chongatera. Thereafter, Mr. Green will have to find another lawyer to represent him, or he will have to represent himself. [ 17 ] In assessing prejudice, I recognize that Mr. Green would certainly benefit from having a lawyer represent him. I acknowledge that he will experience prejudice if he is not represented by a lawyer. This prejudice is, however, mitigated by the following considerations: • Mr. Green did not ask Mr. Chongatera to represent him until very recently. Mr.

Green’s former lawyer was permitted to withdraw in September 2021 – almost eight months ago. Mr. Green should not have delayed in asking Mr. Chongatera to represent him. • With Mr. Green’s knowledge, Mr. Chongatera accepted the retainer knowing that he was not available on the scheduled hearing dates. • Mr. Green is intelligent and articulate. After the issuance of the CRO, Mr. Green has represented himself throughout much of the proceeding. Mr. Green was able to effectively communicate his position on the various issues.

Although the court did not agree with many of his submissions, I certainly did not have difficulty appreciating what Mr. Green’s submissions entailed. Prejudice to Ms. Green [ 18 ] If the adjournment is granted, Ms. Green will experience prejudice because the hearing will be delayed yet again. There will be no judicial resolution of the continuing acrimony and conflict, including the resolution of the issues involving therapy and international travel. I also note that an adjournment would likely result in a substantial delay because there is no available trial time on my docket until at least September.

I recognize that such a delay will cause prejudice to Ms. Green. Prejudice to the Public [ 19 ] If the adjournment is granted, there is likely sufficient time to rebook my docket. As a result, an adjournment will occasion little direct prejudice to the public. Best Interests of Children [ 20 ] Is an adjournment in the best interests of the children? In my divorce decision, I held that although therapeutic interventions were both necessary and appropriate, it was not in the children’s best interests to be engaged in therapy indefinitely.

The parties were allotted seven months in which to successfully complete their therapeutic goals: [112] It is essential that the parties make good faith efforts when engaging in therapy. The parties, especially the father, have much to accomplish. If the father is not willing to make the necessary changes, there is little likelihood that his relationship with the children will improve. The outcome is within the father’s control. [113] The parenting conflict has raged on for more than two years.

Although therapeutic interventions are both necessary and appropriate, it is not in the children’s best interests to be engaged in therapy indefinitely. Therefore, the parties will have seven months to conclude the therapeutic goals. If they are successful, then a more typical parenting arrangement will follow. The father should note, however, that a typical parenting arrangement does not necessarily mean shared parenting. A typical parenting arrangement often means less than 40% of the children’s time.

The father should focus on the quality and not the quantity of his parenting time . [ Emphasis added] [ 21 ] My divorce decision is dated February 16, 2021. The review hearing was supposed to have occurred in September 2021 – not September 2022. Further delay will negatively impact the children’s best interests. It is in the children’s best interests to resolve the matter on a final basis. Conclusion [ 22 ] After weighing the respective prejudices through the lens of the children’s best interests, I must deny the adjournment request of Mr. Green.

The review and variation hearing scheduled for May 30, 31, and June 2, 2022 will proceed. [ 23 ] Any costs submissions associated with this adjournment request can be addressed at the conclusion of the upcoming review and variation hearing. Forgeron, J