David A. Jarvis

The applicant father sought an urgent Case Conference to address access to the parties' two children and to appoint an expert for a parenting assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, alleging the respondent mother was obstructing access.

The court found the matter met the urgency requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted the motion, providing specific directions for the conference, including timelines for brief submissions and details regarding the proposed assessor.

The court also offered guidance on parenting during the pandemic, emphasizing the presumption of continuing existing arrangements and the need for realistic solutions.

The respondent (husband) brought an urgent motion seeking leave to address the upcoming sale of the parties' matrimonial home, scheduled for May 1, 2020, amidst the COVID-19 suspension of regular court operations.

Despite the husband's non-compliance with page limits for urgent motion materials, the court found the relief requested met the urgency requirements set out in the Chief Justice's Notice.

The court granted the urgent motion request and issued detailed procedural directions for a teleconference motion, including timelines for material delivery, page limits, and submission times, specifically restricting the motion to the matrimonial home sale issue.

During the COVID-19 suspension of court operations, the court issued directions for a case conference concerning access to the parties' child.

This followed an urgent motion where the respondent mother was found in breach of a prior consent access order.

The endorsement outlines specific procedural directions for the conference, including electronic filing and a restricted focus on access, and declares these directions to be an immediately operative and enforceable order.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to enforce a prior parenting order, alleging the respondent mother was withholding their child in breach of the order, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the urgent motion, emphasizing the need for child-focused behaviour and adherence to public health guidelines.

The court provided specific directions for the teleconference motion, including strict page limits for submissions and argument times, and deemed the directions an immediately operative order.

The applicant father brought a motion for a case conference to address the termination of a child support order, following a change in custody where the child was placed in his care.

The respondent mother had refused to consent to the termination.

The court granted the motion for a case conference, providing specific directions for its scheduling and conduct, and indicated that the mother should be prepared to address a suspension of the support order pending a final determination.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for a Case Conference to address the applicant mother's alleged denial of access to their two children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the motion and issued procedural directions for scheduling the conference and filing briefs electronically, suspending certain Family Law Rules in light of the pandemic.

The respondent father brought a motion requesting a case conference on parenting issues, which had been previously adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother opposed.

The court granted the motion, ordering a one-hour settlement conference restricted to parenting issues, to be held electronically by the Case Management Judge.

Specific directions were given for scheduling, scope, and electronic filing of briefs and offers to settle, with parties advised to consider the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on their proposed solutions.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the partial release of funds from the sale of the parties' former matrimonial home.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for a lesser release.

The court, considering the parties' financial needs and the presumptive equalization payment, ordered the release of $150,000 to each party, with the father also ordered to pay $4,000 in costs to the mother.

The decision emphasized the need for realistic solutions and good faith communication during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's access to their three-year-old daughter due to concerns about his compliance with COVID-19 public health protocols.

The court had temporarily suspended access pending an affidavit from the father.

After reviewing the father's affidavit and hearing his assurances that he was following all provincial COVID-19 precautions, the court rescinded the temporary stay and reinstated the father's access pursuant to the existing parenting order.

Costs were reserved.

The applicant mother brought urgent motions for the partial release of funds held in trust from the sale of the parties’ former matrimonial home.

The court acknowledged the urgency of the request, given the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, and directed the respondent father to file a response to the motions by 3:00 p.m. on the same day.

The court emphasized the need for parties to communicate in good faith and propose realistic solutions during these times, citing principles from *Ribeiro v. Wright*.

A written decision was to be issued after the respondent's submissions.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic to suspend the respondent father's access to their 3-year-old daughter.

The mother had repeatedly requested assurances from the father that he was complying with public health guidelines regarding social distancing and third-party exposure during his parenting time.

The father refused to meaningfully engage or provide the requested information.

The court found the mother's requests reasonable and child-focused, and held that the father's failure to communicate and cooperate regarding the child's safety was unacceptable.

The court ordered the father's access suspended until he files an affidavit addressing the mother's COVID-19 concerns to the court's satisfaction.

This ruling addresses the appropriate sanction for contempt of court by the applicant (husband) and associated costs.

The husband was previously found in contempt of six court orders concerning financial disclosure.

The court ordered the husband to be imprisoned for 30 days, to be served on weekends, and to pay the respondent (wife) $119,260 in costs, with half enforceable as a support order.

The court found the husband acted in bad faith by deliberately suppressing financial disclosure and misleading the court.

A request for a sealing order by the wife was declined due to lack of proper notice and non-compliance with practice directions.

Following a successful Hague Convention application ordering the return of two children to Nevada, the applicant father sought costs for the Ontario proceedings and related expenses.

The court found that the respondent mother acted in bad faith by concealing the children's whereabouts and deceiving the court about their passports.

The court awarded the father full recovery costs of $6,240 for the bad faith conduct and an additional $30,000 for the balance of the proceedings, deferring payment of the latter amount to allow the mother to regularize her immigration status and pursue business plans.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two infant children from Ontario to Nevada.

The respondent mother opposed the return, alleging domestic violence and arguing that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation under Article 13(b).

The court found that the children were habitually resident in Nevada and wrongfully removed by the mother.

The court held that the mother failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to establish the Article 13(b) exception, noting the availability of legal and protective resources in Nevada.

The application was granted and the children were ordered returned to Nevada.

The respondent wife brought a motion seeking the incarceration of the applicant husband for his contempt of six financial disclosure orders.

The husband had repeatedly failed to disclose offshore bank accounts and income, misled the court, and instructed his offshore bank to disobey a court direction.

The court found the husband's conduct to be a deliberate and flagrant disobedience of court orders.

However, rather than immediately incarcerating the husband, the court deferred sentencing to allow him a final opportunity to purge his contempt by providing the required disclosure, warning that a period of incarceration would be imposed regardless.

The respondent, who was previously prohibited from bringing motions without prior judicial approval, brought a motion for leave to proceed with a motion seeking 17 substantive heads of relief.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, noting that the supporting affidavit was excessively long, argumentative, and replete with unsupported allegations of fraud against lawyers and judicial officials.

The court warned the respondent that further non-compliance could result in her being declared a vexatious litigant and restricted future affidavits for leave motions to five pages.

The applicant mother sought to change a previous order, requesting sole custody of one child (BB), changes to parenting terms, and child support.

The respondent father sought to maintain joint custody, reduce the mother's access, and for the mother to pay child support.

He also brought a motion for contempt against the mother.

The court found extreme parental conflict, making joint custody unworkable.

The mother was granted sole custody and decision-making authority for BB, and sole decision-making for AB and EB in matters of education, counselling, and healthcare, with a modified residential schedule.

The father's income was imputed for child support purposes, and his contempt motion was largely dismissed, except for two minor issues.

The parties engaged in a family arbitration that resulted in an award ordering the respondent to pay $450,000 in lump sum spousal support and $185,000 in costs.

The respondent appealed the award and brought a motion to stay its enforcement pending the appeal, while the applicant moved to dismiss or stay the appeal due to the respondent's failure to pay the award.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the respondent failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, particularly given the arbitrator's findings of egregious financial non-disclosure by the respondent.

The court declined to dismiss the appeal as an abuse of process but ordered that the respondent must comply with the support order by a specified date, failing which the applicant could move to dismiss the appeal.

The parties attended a trial scheduling conference for a family law application involving equalization and support.

The applicant was ready for trial, but the self-represented respondent sought an adjournment and estimated a ten-day trial, proposing to tender over 2,000 documents.

The court found the issues were not complex and did not require ten days.

Due to the late delivery of an expert report and the volume of proposed evidence, the court ordered a further settlement conference and issued strict procedural directions regarding disclosure, expert reports, witness statements, and financial statements to ensure the matter proceeds efficiently.

The applicant wife sought extensive financial disclosure and questioning of the respondent husband's father, Marcel Aitoro (a non-party), regarding several companies and properties.

The wife alleged significant intertwining of business and personal financial affairs between the husband and Marcel, suggesting assets were being shielded and income diverted.

Marcel and the husband opposed, citing privacy and proportionality.

The court dismissed a preliminary objection by the husband regarding the wife's affidavit.

Applying Family Law Rules 19(11) and 20(5), and considering the importance of disclosure in family law, the court ordered Marcel to provide specific financial disclosure related to FSC (a company with intertwined business activities with the husband), redacted ledgers from Assissi (Marcel's holding company) concerning realty and husband's expenses, and redacted credit card statements used by the husband.

Questioning of Marcel was reserved pending compliance with the disclosure order.