Alexandra Raquel Cohan

A pre-trial motion concerning the admissibility and use of will-say statements prepared by counsel for the applicant's witnesses.

The respondent sought an order permitting cross-examination of the witnesses on their will-says, or alternatively, requiring the statements to be translated and signed by the witnesses, or permitting cross-examination of the applicant on the preparation of the statements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the will-say statements were provided in compliance with the undertakings given, were sufficiently detailed and meaningful, and that the respondent was not prejudiced by their late service.

The court clarified the proper use of will-say statements as disclosure tools rather than evidence, and protected communications between the applicant and her counsel regarding the preparation of the statements under solicitor-client privilege.

The applicant father brought a motion to find the respondent mother in contempt of a 2018 access order after he was denied access to the children since December 2019.

The court found that while the preponderance of the evidence suggested the mother's recent attempt to facilitate access was a sham, it did not meet the criminal standard of proof required for contempt.

The motion was dismissed, but no costs were awarded due to the mother's unreasonable conduct.

The applicant father brought a motion for restoration of access to his two children and an assessment under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent mother had withheld access since January 2020 and failed to file responding materials.

The court granted the applicant interim access to the children and ordered the respondent to pay $500 in costs, emphasizing that it is not in the children's best interests to be without their father.

The respondent brought an urgent motion seeking recommencement of access and make-up weekends for the child, Alicia, after the applicant unilaterally withheld access due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, reviewed the materials and applied the test for urgency during the pandemic.

It found that the matter did not meet the high threshold for urgency, but emphasized that existing court orders for access must be respected.

The applicant's concerns about COVID-19 compliance were not supported by evidence and did not justify breaching the order.

The court ordered the applicant to provide two consecutive make-up weekends immediately and for alternating weekend access to resume thereafter.

The respondent's request for an urgent motion hearing was dismissed without prejudice, and no costs were ordered at this stage.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion regarding access to the parties' two children during the COVID-19 suspension of regular court operations.

The triage judge reviewed the electronic materials and determined the matter was not urgent, as there were no concerns regarding the safety of the children or a parent.

The motion was adjourned to set a case conference date.