Alex Pazaratz

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to change a long-standing final parenting order, seeking to retain the three children in Hamilton, Ontario, after a summer visit, rather than returning them to the respondent mother in St. Louis, Missouri, where they had habitually resided for seven years.

The father cited concerns including the oldest child's sexual orientation, homeschooling, housing, the mother's responsibilities, dental care, and COVID-19 risks in Missouri.

The respondent mother cross-moved to dismiss the father's motion and for the Ontario court to decline jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no material change in circumstances or urgency, and declined jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, ordering the immediate return of the children to the mother in St. Louis.

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion to terminate a supervision order concerning a child who had suffered severe, unexplained head injuries as an infant.

Despite positive developments in the parents' care and compliance with supervision, the court dismissed the motion, deeming it premature given the horrific nature of the initial injuries and the unresolved culpability of the parents.

The existing supervision order was continued, emphasizing the court's responsibility to protect vulnerable children in cases of severe abuse.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking the immediate sale of two jointly owned properties, including the matrimonial home where the applicant mother resided with their children, and an investment condominium.

The father cited severe financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which drastically reduced his income as an optometrist.

The mother opposed the sale, arguing no urgency, potential homelessness for the children, and questioning the father's financial claims.

The court granted the father's motion, finding that economic necessity required the sale of both properties to alleviate debt and free up equity, and that the mother failed to establish sufficient legal reason or prejudice to prevent the sale.

The court emphasized the need for parties to face financial realities, especially during the pandemic, and to move towards an efficient resolution.

The applicant father sought a temporary variation of a final parenting order, requesting primary residence and decision-making authority for the children, citing the respondent mother's manipulative behavior, false allegations, and obstruction of the children's therapeutic services.

The respondent mother opposed, bringing a cross-motion for OCL involvement.

The court found a material change in circumstances and that the existing equal time-sharing arrangement was intolerable due to the high conflict and the children's deteriorating emotional and developmental issues.

The court granted the father primary residence and decision-making authority, finding the mother's lack of insight and self-centered decisions detrimental to the children's best interests, and declined OCL involvement.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion seeking permission to proceed with a summary judgment motion in a complex child protection file involving three children.

The motion was heard via Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the urgency of child protection matters and the court's evolving protocols.

One respondent, K.K., who was self-represented, requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The court granted the Society's request to proceed with the summary judgment motion, allowing K.K. a brief extension to file further materials and retain counsel, emphasizing the need for timely resolution for the children.

During the COVID-19 court suspension, the father brought an urgent motion alleging his 8-year-old son expressed suicidal ideation due to unhappiness at the mother's residence.

The mother disputed the urgency, characterizing the child as "normal, happy." The Triage Judge found the allegations potentially urgent, emphasizing the need for prompt investigation in serious child welfare matters.

The court set an expedited schedule for responding materials and a teleconference hearing to formally determine urgency and make necessary orders.

This is a triage endorsement during the COVID-19 pandemic concerning an urgent motion brought by the applicant father for expanded access to his two young children.

The court, having prior familiarity with the custody/access dispute, noted that the Children's Aid Society (CAS) no longer deemed full supervision necessary and could no longer provide supervision due to reduced operations, resulting in the father having no in-person access.

Given that the police investigation against the father did not result in charges and CAS's changed position, the court found the father's issues potentially urgent.

The endorsement set a schedule for the respondent mother to file responding materials and for the applicant father to file a reply, including an updated letter from CAS, before the matter is scheduled for a judge to formally determine urgency and make necessary orders.

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's in-person access to their six-year-old daughter, proposing video contact instead, citing concerns about the father's adherence to COVID-19 safety precautions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it not urgent, emphasizing that the mother's allegations did not establish the father was irresponsible or unsafe, and criticized the "nuclear option" approach without exploring less restrictive solutions or good faith communication.

The applicant, self-represented, brought a motion for an ex parte final order in a complex family law matter during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The motion sought extensive relief including parenting arrangements, significant spousal and child support, and property division.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, dismissed the motion, finding the applicant's materials (over 100 pages) to be voluminous, unfocused, and unsuitable for an ex parte final order given the complexity of the claims and the respondent's lack of active participation.

The court urged the applicant to retain counsel and directed that any future urgent motions must be brief, efficient, and focused, not exceeding 10 pages.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 suspension of court operations to reinstate his access to his two children, aged 9 and 11.

The mother had unilaterally terminated a long-standing joint custody and access arrangement, citing the children's concerns about COVID-19 and a recent trip to Mexico.

The Children's Aid Society had previously closed a file regarding unverified allegations against the father and expected the family to follow the existing order.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined the matter was potentially urgent due to the sudden interruption of a generous timesharing arrangement.

The motion was allowed to proceed, with timelines set for the mother to file responding materials.

The judge emphasized the overwhelming caselaw presumption that parenting arrangements should continue during COVID-19 unless health or safety issues are proven.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for immediate unsupervised alternate weekend access and a transfer of primary placement of the child, alleging denial of access and serious misconduct by the applicant father, including sexual assault.

The applicant father opposed the urgency determination.

The court, operating under COVID-19 protocols, found the matter potentially urgent due to the suspension of access, new serious allegations, and concerns about the father potentially exploiting the status quo.

The court ordered a schedule for responding materials and an updated CAS letter, setting the matter for a hearing on or after May 13, 2020, and strongly encouraged negotiation.

The applicant sought an urgent motion for child support during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, declined the request for urgency, finding that while child support is important, the long-standing nature of the issue (over two years since separation) did not meet the criteria for "urgent" as defined by the Rules and COVID-19 protocols.

Procedural issues regarding proper service and the respondent's counsel of record were also noted.

This is a triage endorsement concerning an urgent motion brought by the respondent father during the COVID-19 pandemic to liberalize access to the parties' child, including overnight visits and driving privileges, based on a psychiatrist's report.

The applicant mother opposed, challenging the report and seeking disclosure from the father's psychologist.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined that the specific issues of liberalizing access were not urgent, being complex matters without significant prejudice if delayed.

However, the court clarified that any reduction in the father's existing time-sharing arrangement would be presumptively urgent.

The father's motion to proceed was not authorized at this time, without prejudice to future urgent requests if existing access was threatened.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to reinstate alternate weekend access to his two children, which the respondent mother had unilaterally suspended citing COVID-19 concerns.

The court, acting as Triage Judge during the pandemic, determined that the issues raised were potentially urgent, given the alleged interruption of a long-standing time-sharing pattern.

The court set a schedule for the respondent to file responding materials and for the applicant to file a reply, with the matter to be scheduled for a future hearing.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to establish weekly video-conferences with the child after relocating to British Columbia.

The court, acting as a Triage Judge during COVID-19 suspensions, made a preliminary determination that the issues raised were potentially urgent.

The court set a schedule for the applicant mother to file responding materials and for the respondent father to file reply materials, with the matter to be scheduled for a judge on or after May 13, 2020, for a formal urgency determination and necessary orders.

This is a triage endorsement for an urgent motion in a family law matter.

The applicant mother sought the return of her two children, alleging the respondent father refused to return them after a visit, disrupting a long-standing parenting status quo.

The court made a preliminary finding that the issues were potentially urgent and set a schedule for the filing of materials, emphasizing the need for evidence from both parents.

The court also provided guidance on parenting principles, including reluctance to disrupt status quo, maximum contact, and disapproval of unilateral action.

The Applicants sought a significant costs award following a 41-day family law trial where they were largely successful in obtaining sole custody, limited access for the Respondent, and termination of spousal support.

The Respondent, who was self-represented, engaged in unreasonable and bad faith litigation conduct, including pursuing meritless claims, missing court dates, and failing to provide disclosure.

The court found the Respondent's behavior reprehensible and awarded the Applicants $132,000.00 in costs, with a portion enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to reinstate face-to-face access with his five-year-old child, which the applicant mother had suspended due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, made a preliminary determination that the matter was "potentially urgent" given the suspension of a long-standing time-sharing arrangement.

The court set a schedule for the filing of responding and reply materials and provided guidance on the general principles for parenting issues during COVID-19, emphasizing cooperation and child-focused problem-solving.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to enforce access to his four-year-old child, which the mother had denied due to concerns about COVID-19 precautions.

The motion was referred for a triage determination of urgency.

The court found that the applicant had not served the materials on the respondent mother and had not properly commenced an application or motion to change in the current court location, despite the child and mother residing there.

The court dismissed the father's request to proceed with the materials as presented, emphasizing the need for proper service and commencement of proceedings.

The court also referred the parties to a prior decision regarding the presumption of continuing access during COVID-19.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to restore court-ordered access to the child, which the respondent father had unilaterally suspended.

The father alleged the mother violated a condition regarding her partner's presence, despite a Children's Aid Society investigation finding the allegations "not verified." The court, acting as Triage Judge, found the matter "potentially urgent" given the ongoing denial of access and scheduled it for a full hearing, setting timelines for responding materials.

The court also provided guidance on issues to be addressed at the hearing, including CAS recommendations, reconciliation counselling, and the impropriety of self-help remedies for non-compliance with orders.