Alex Pazaratz

On a temporary motion in a long-running family case, the moving party sought immediate implementation of a 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule based on selected pages from an updated s. 112 OCL report, and also sought related child support changes.

The court held that varying a temporary parenting order requires a material change and exceptional circumstances demonstrated by clear, compelling evidence, with strong caution against repeated interim re-litigation and against adopting untested assessment recommendations before trial.

The motion record was found deficient because only recommendation pages were filed and the evidentiary context was not provided, and no urgency was established to justify disruption of the existing status quo.

The court dismissed the parenting variation request, noted procedural missteps regarding variation of a final support order, and directed the matter back to combined settlement and trial scheduling.

Costs were resolved on consent with payment timelines for current and prior costs awards.

The applicant father brought an urgent pre-Case Conference motion seeking to reverse a unilateral change in school placement for the parties' six-year-old child, made by the respondent mother shortly after separation.

The mother had transferred the child from her established school in Hamilton to a school in Burlington, where the mother was temporarily residing with her parents.

The court held that the child's long-standing school placement constituted a status quo deserving protection under the best interests of the child analysis, and that no compelling justification existed to ratify the unilateral change.

The minor inconvenience of additional travel time did not outweigh the detriment of disrupting the child's established school environment.

The motion was granted and the child was ordered returned to her former school immediately.

A child protection agency brought a motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 seeking a declaration that the father was a "special party" within the meaning of Rule 2(2) of the Family Law Rules, and an order appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as his legal representative under Rule 4(3).

The Public Guardian and Trustee declined to consent, taking the position that the father had not met the legal test for incapacity.

The court applied the presumption of capacity under the Substitute Decisions Act and found that, despite the father's unusual, paranoid, and hostile communications, the agency had not established that the father was mentally incapable of understanding the issues and making decisions in the litigation.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant father brought an "emergency" motion seeking to proceed before a case conference to obtain decision-making responsibility and parenting time for a five-year-old child.

The respondent mother was served by email approximately one hour before the motion materials were submitted to the judge in chambers, providing no meaningful opportunity to respond.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the matter did not meet the threshold for urgency under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules and that the new "Emergency Motion Request Form" procedure was fundamentally flawed as it allowed judicial determinations affecting parties' rights based solely on one-sided evidence without opportunity for the responding party to be heard.

This endorsement addresses the problematic use of "Notice of Change of Representation" forms in family law proceedings, particularly when counsel attempts to unilaterally and belatedly withdraw from the record on the eve of trial.

The court reviews the chronology of representation, the impact on the parties and the child, and the responsibilities of counsel in family litigation.

The trial is ordered to proceed as scheduled, with counsel confirmed on the record and the adjournment request withdrawn.

This decision concerns an urgent motion brought by the father, Keven Moniz, seeking the immediate return of funds removed by the mother, Diane Filipe, from joint accounts following separation.

The court reviews the parties' financial circumstances, the history of their relationship, and the competing submissions regarding the urgency and fairness of the requested relief.

The court orders the mother to pay the father $75,000 as a partial repayment of his share of the joint savings, with further funds to be held in trust pending future proceedings.

Costs are awarded to the father, with a portion set off against a previous order.

This costs endorsement addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute between separated parents.

The father was successful in obtaining a continuation of equal parenting time and joint decision-making, while the mother’s requests for sole decision-making, reduced parenting time for the father, a restraining order, and child support were largely unsuccessful.

The court reviews the principles and rules governing costs in family law, the parties’ conduct, and the impact of offers to settle.

Ultimately, the mother is ordered to pay the father $8,000 in costs, reflecting the father’s overwhelming success and the mother’s unreasonable litigation conduct.

This decision concerns a motion to change child support for an adult disabled child.

The court reviews the parties' history, the child's circumstances, and the relevant legal framework, including the impact of ODSP benefits and the discretion under the Child Support Guidelines for adult children.

The court finds that the father’s proposal of $200 per month is reasonable, given the evidence and the parties’ financial circumstances, and orders repayment of the father’s overpayment at $50 per month.

The court addresses two motions brought by the self-represented applicant father in a high-conflict parenting dispute.

The first, on consent, requests involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The second seeks to strike the respondent mother’s Response to Request to Admit, which was served 68 minutes late.

The court reviews the relevant case law and the Family Law Rules, ultimately exercising discretion to allow the late filing, finding no prejudice to the father and emphasizing the need for common sense and focus on the best interests of the children.

This decision concerns a high-conflict parenting dispute between Carla Patricia Ferreira Da Silva and Ramon Arturo Gomez Quevedo regarding their three-year-old son, Rafael.

The court addresses the impact of the father's changed work schedule on the existing equal parenting arrangement and the mother's request to reduce the father's time and obtain sole decision-making.

The court emphasizes the importance of the status quo, the best interests of the child, and the need for flexibility and cooperation between parents.

A temporary order is made maintaining equal parenting time, with adjustments to accommodate the father's new employment, and joint decision-making is preserved.

The court dismissed the applicant mother's motion for interim release of her share of net sale proceeds from the former family residence, finding insufficient evidence to justify the request.

The decision criticizes the parties' lack of progress toward a final order, the repeated use of interim motions, and the inefficiency this causes in the family court system.

The court schedules a Trial Scheduling Conference and emphasizes the need for final resolution rather than continued piecemeal litigation.

This costs endorsement addresses a bitter parenting dispute between Jonathan Delbert Grant and Lindsay Marie Runciman regarding their two young daughters.

The court reviews the parties' conduct, the offers to settle, and the principles governing costs in family law, ultimately awarding the father $2,000 in costs due to his greater success on important issues and the mother's unreasonable positions, despite overall divided success.

This decision addresses an interim parenting and school placement dispute following a parent's unilateral relocation with children in breach of a separation agreement.

The court finds the mother acted unilaterally and without candor, and orders the children to remain at their original school, with a detailed interim parenting schedule and joint decision-making (with final authority to the father if consensus cannot be reached).

The decision emphasizes the primacy of the children's best interests, the importance of stability, and the need for full disclosure and procedural fairness in family law proceedings.

The court considered whether a mother could insist on strict compliance with a parenting order after the parties had followed a different schedule for over three years.

The father sought to restore the status quo of Thursday overnight visits, which the mother unilaterally attempted to revert to alternate Wednesdays.

The court found that the status quo should be maintained pending a full hearing, emphasizing the best interests of the child and discouraging unilateral changes.

The father's motion was granted, maintaining Thursday overnight parenting time.

This decision addresses an urgent parenting motion regarding a 10-year-old child, PRW.

The father, James Rufus Walker, withheld the child from the mother, Alecia Rachelle Innes, after a scheduled visit, claiming longstanding concerns about the child's welfare.

The court found that the father’s actions did not meet the threshold of urgency required to justify unilateral action and disruption of the status quo.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the mother and emphasized the importance of following court orders, discouraging self-help remedies, and considering the best interests of the child above all.

This decision concerns a motion regarding the relocation of a 10-month-old child, Georgia, by her mother from Hamilton to Meaford, Ontario, without the father's consent.

The court reviews the parties' affidavits and the circumstances of the move, including issues of urgency, domestic violence allegations, parenting capacity, and the impact of distance on the child's relationship with both parents.

The court orders the mother to pursue arrangements to relocate back to Hamilton and to provide documentation of her housing applications, while maintaining the current parenting schedule with conditions.

This motion concerned the adjournment of a 10-day family law trial primarily focused on parenting and child support.

The respondent mother sought the adjournment due to the applicant father's late disclosure of a significant change in his employment status.

The father opposed, arguing the change did not impact the main parenting issue.

The court granted the adjournment, acknowledging the court's inability to call the trial during scheduled sittings and the need to respect solicitor availability.

However, the mother's request for costs "thrown away" due to the late disclosure was dismissed, with the court deferring this to the trial judge and noting shared responsibility for systemic delays.

Mandatory questioning was ordered to resolve outstanding disclosure issues before any further settlement conference.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking unsupervised parenting time and police enforcement, among other relief, in a family law case that had been dormant for nearly six years.

The respondent mother, now self-represented, sought an adjournment to respond to new allegations.

The court criticized both parties for the prolonged inactivity and for attempting to litigate complex, triable issues via motion, emphasizing that motions are not a substitute for a trial.

The judge granted the mother's adjournment request and requested Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement, declining to make immediate police enforcement orders given the child's expressed reluctance and the need for proper evidentiary standards.