David A. Jarvis

The mother brought an urgent, ex parte motion to change a final joint custody order to allow her to relocate with the child.

The court considered the motion under the COVID-19 Notices to the Profession.

The court found the motion was not urgent enough to proceed without notice, but qualified as a pressing matter.

The court ordered the mother to serve the father and scheduled a case conference.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, an urgent case conference, an order restraining the respondent father's communication, and an order preventing the father from filming exchanges.

The court found the concerns, though not COVID-19 related, impacted current parenting arrangements and met the test for urgency.

The court ordered a teleconference to be scheduled, set deadlines for reply affidavits, limited argument times, and indicated an intention to address the OCL request and potential modifications to parenting arrangements at the conference.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion without notice for the return of two of the parties' children to her care, alleging domestic abuse.

The applicant father disputed the allegations and claimed the children primarily resided with him.

The court found the matter was a parenting dispute rather than an urgent issue arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, though it noted concern over the father's apparent failure to facilitate contact.

The court declined to proceed with the motion and instead directed the parties to attend a case conference restricted to temporary parenting arrangements.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL), an urgent case conference, a restraining order against the respondent father regarding communication, and an order preventing the father from filming exchanges.

The court found the motion met the test of urgency due to escalating conflict negatively impacting the children.

While deferring the OCL appointment and case conference, the court ordered several steps to gather information and de-escalate the conflict, including directing the York Region Children's Aid Society to file an affidavit, the mother to provide counsellor notes and OFW communications, and the father to provide evidence of criminal charge withdrawals and details of any outstanding charges.

The court also temporarily suspended part of the existing communication protocol.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' two children after the respondent father refused to adhere to the parenting schedule following a suspected COVID-19 exposure and subsequent negative test result.

The court found the father's refusal to return the children after his negative test result to be without merit and ordered the immediate return of the children to the mother's care, with the parenting schedule to resume thereafter.

No costs were awarded.

The respondent (mother) brought an urgent, ex parte motion for the return of two children.

The court reviewed the criteria for urgent motions during the COVID-19 pandemic and found no sufficient basis for proceeding without notice to the applicant (father), despite allegations of domestic abuse.

The court ordered the mother to serve the father with her motion materials and set a schedule for responses, limiting affidavit lengths and the scope of relief to parenting arrangements.

This ruling addresses the costs of a six-day trial where the mother was awarded final decision-making authority for the child and the terms of a domestic contract challenged by the father were upheld.

The mother sought full indemnity costs of $73,495.06, while the self-represented father sought reimbursement for his trial-related legal costs.

The court applied Family Law Rules 18 and 24, considering the principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate litigant behavior.

The court found the mother was not "overwhelmingly" successful but prevailed on key issues, and the father's conduct increased the mother's costs.

The court reduced the mother's claimed costs, finding her offer was delivered late and not severable, and that she should have demonstrated greater settlement flexibility.

The father was ordered to pay the mother costs of $46,000, with a credit of $14,246.82 from the sale of the parties' former residence, resulting in a net payment of $31,753.18.

This family law trial addressed the equalization of net family properties, child support, and the potential unconscionability of an equalization payment.

The court determined the valuation date to be December 8, 2015, and calculated that the wife presumptively owed the husband an equalization payment of $66,080.

The husband was ordered to pay child support and arrears.

The final decision on the equalization payment was deferred for further submissions on unconscionability, particularly considering the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the wife's business.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for a case conference to address access facilitation after his previously proposed facilitator, his sister, tested positive for COVID-19 and required quarantine.

The respondent mother disputed the urgency, arguing the father acted hastily and failed to propose alternative facilitators.

The court, applying principles from Balbontin v. Luwawa and Ribeiro v. Wright regarding COVID-19 and parenting, found the matter urgent.

The father's motion was granted, and an urgent case conference was scheduled to address access facilitation, with specific directions for the parties' submissions.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The respondent wife brought an urgent motion to annul the husband's bankruptcy and prevent asset distribution, citing the husband's history of misrepresenting financial circumstances and concealing offshore assets.

The court, acknowledging the urgency related to non-depletion of assets during the COVID-19 suspension of regular operations, ordered the Trustee in Bankruptcy to halt asset distribution and provide a detailed accounting.

Other relief sought was deferred until court re-opening.

The court also addressed the wife's non-compliance with an urgent motion practice direction, overlooking it due to the urgency of asset preservation.

This endorsement arises from an urgent case conference concerning a father's access to the parties' 1.5-year-old child during the COVID-19 emergency.

Following judicial recommendations and negotiations, the parties consented to an order defining the child's time with the father.

The court emphasized the immediate enforceability of the order without formal entry due to the emergency, and directed a future case conference for non-parenting issues.

The husband brought an urgent motion concerning the sale of the matrimonial home, with the wife filing a cross-motion addressing similar issues and her financial security.

The court ordered that a line of credit secured against the home be paid from the gross sale proceeds, and the remaining net proceeds be disbursed to the wife.

This decision was based on the husband's history of non-compliance with support orders, questionable financial conduct, and substantial support arrears, prioritizing the wife's financial stability.

The father brought an urgent motion to enforce a child access order, which was subsequently dismissed as moot because access had resumed.

The motion then proceeded on the issue of costs.

The court found that neither party acted entirely reasonably in their communications during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to the escalation of the dispute.

No costs were awarded to either party, and the court encouraged the parties to engage a third-party professional for communication and co-operation.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for a case conference to increase access time for his child and to change the access exchange facilitator.

The respondent mother disputed the urgency of the request, citing the Chief Justice's Notice regarding COVID-19 court operations.

The court applied the urgency criteria from the Chief's Notice and Thomas v. Wohleber, finding that the father's concerns were not immediate, serious, or material, and that the request for expanded parenting time was premature given an ongoing OCL investigation.

The motion was dismissed, and the father was ordered to pay costs to the mother.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a child support order, seeking termination and repayment of support after the child's residency changed to his care.

The respondent mother initially resisted, proposing only a temporary suspension and later adding a no-costs term to an offer.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, noting her continued acceptance of support despite the child's changed residency and her delay in accepting a reasonable offer.

The court ordered the temporary suspension of the child support order, granted the mother an extension to file pleadings, and awarded costs of $2,000 to the father, enforceable as a support order, due to the mother's behavior.

The applicant brought an urgent motion to have the names of the parties and their daughter identified only by their initials in court endorsements and orders, citing the nature of the applicant's occupation.

The respondent consented to the request.

The court found the request reasonable and granted the order, with no costs awarded.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking sole custody, a restraining order, and a no-contact order against the respondent mother, following an alleged assault involving one of their children.

The mother had been criminally charged and was subject to an undertaking prohibiting contact with the children.

The court dismissed the urgent motion, finding no ongoing urgency as the children were safe with the father and the mother's undertaking already provided the requested protective measures.

The court encouraged the parties to discuss temporary arrangements for contact, decision-making, and child support, noting that any future urgent motions would need to meet established criteria.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to address parenting time issues and enforce an alleged parenting schedule, claiming the respondent father was unreasonably withholding access.

The court found the evidence met the urgency requirements set out in the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

The motion was granted, and directions were issued to schedule an urgent case conference restricted to dealing with the father's access.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion concerning access, but his supporting affidavit grossly exceeded the four-page limit stipulated by the April 17, 2020 (amended) CER Notice to the Profession.

Due to this non-compliance with the practice direction, the court denied the urgent case conference request without prejudice, allowing the applicant to renew the request upon compliance.

This endorsement followed an urgent case conference, initiated by the respondent father, concerning parenting issues for the parties' two young children amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court provided recommendations and directed counsel to ascertain the potential for agreement on the conferenced issues, with further directions to follow based on the parties' feedback.

The order emphasized its immediate enforceability due to the emergency circumstances.