David A. Jarvis

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion regarding daycare arrangements for the parties' four-and-a-half-year-old child, seeking to ensure the child's continued attendance at a subsidized daycare (KI) to prevent the loss of subsidy and placement.

The applicant father opposed, proposing an alternative daycare.

The court found the daycare issue urgent due to the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and noted the father's failure to respond to the motion.

The court granted the mother's requested relief, ordering the child to return to KI, and awarded costs to the mother due to the father's non-response and lack of acceptable explanation.

The moving party brought an urgent motion to change final orders regarding child support and access.

The court dismissed the motion because the moving party failed to demonstrate genuine settlement efforts, failed to disclose a prior dismissal and unpaid costs order, and repeatedly failed to follow the Family Law Rules by using a Form 14 instead of a Motion to Change.

The moving party was ordered to pay $2,000 in costs and barred from bringing further motions until all costs are paid.

The applicant brought a motion requesting leave to proceed with an urgent motion for spousal support.

Pursuant to a newly effective Notice to the Profession and Family Law Litigants and Protocol for Central East Region, leave on the basis of urgency was no longer required since a case conference had already been held.

The court dismissed the motion for leave without prejudice, noting it was unnecessary, and directed the applicant to file an Assignment Court Confirmation request to proceed with her intended motion.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking leave to have an urgent motion heard regarding in-person access to the parties' child, which the respondent mother had been refusing since March 20, 2020, citing COVID-19 related facility closures.

The court noted that a new Central East Region protocol eliminated the requirement for leave on urgency grounds if a case conference had already been held, which was the case here.

Consequently, the father's motion for leave was dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a final order on parenting issues, including leaving access decisions to the children, due to the respondent father's persistent non-compliance with court orders for family reunification therapy.

The court reviewed the extensive history of the father's failure to cooperate with the therapist, including not signing agreements, not paying retainers, and exhibiting argumentative behavior.

Acknowledging the primary objective of the Family Law Rules and the duty to address non-compliance, the court declined to issue a final order immediately but granted the father one last opportunity to comply, ordering him to file an affidavit detailing his position on therapy and costs, with specific timelines.

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion for custody of the parties' two children, supervised access for the respondent father, and a restraining order, citing a history of domestic violence and a recent assault.

The father did not respond to the motion.

The court found the motion met the test for urgency due to paramount concerns for the children's safety and well-being.

The court ordered primary residence and full decision-making authority to the mother, discretionary supervised access for the father, and restricted communication between the parties.

The request for a restraining order was dismissed without prejudice, and a case conference was ordered as the next step.

The applicant father sought an urgent case conference regarding access to the parties' 5 ½ year old child, which the respondent mother disputed as urgent or pressing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of prior settlement discussions, which was deemed a precondition for such urgent requests during the COVID-19 suspension of regular court operations.

The decision reiterated the test for urgency and pressing issues, emphasizing the need for immediate, serious, definite, and particularized concerns, and diligent settlement efforts.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for leave to proceed with a motion regarding access and communication with the parties' two children, alleging the applicant mother had blocked access.

The mother opposed the urgency and alleged the father inappropriately discussed adult matters and the litigation with the children.

The court found a pressing need for judicial intervention but determined a case conference, rather than a motion, was the appropriate next step.

The court ordered a case conference to be scheduled and maintained the current access status quo pending the conference.

The applicant (wife) brought an urgent motion for a case conference to address support and disclosure issues.

The respondent (father) disputed the urgency and the applicant's entitlement to spousal support, arguing that full disclosure and questioning should precede any support determination.

The court found the matter urgent, noting the respondent's unexplained change in position regarding expert evidence and potential tactical delay.

The motion for a case conference was granted, with specific directions for the conference, including requirements for disclosure schedules, offers to settle temporary support, and preparation for the appointment of an expert to assess the father's support income and business interests.

The applicant wife brought a motion for leave to bring an urgent motion to enforce a prior court order regarding support, expenses, disclosure, and the sale of the matrimonial home, alleging the respondent husband had depleted business funds.

The respondent argued against the urgency of the request.

The court found that the unexplained depletion of business account funds by the husband created a dire financial circumstance, satisfying the urgency test under the Chief Justice's Notice regarding COVID-19 court operations.

Leave was granted, and specific directions were provided for the urgent motion, with costs awarded to the applicant.

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion for financial and injunctive relief against the respondent husband and proposed third-party business associates, alleging asset depletion to prejudice family law equalization rights.

The court found the matter urgent due to the husband's alleged failure of financial disclosure and the third parties' lack of cooperation.

The motion was granted in part, allowing the wife to join the third parties, obtain interim non-depletion and Mareva injunctions, and ordering specific disclosure with daily penalties for non-compliance.

The court also imposed strict limits on the volume of material to be filed for the substantive motion hearing.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to vary a temporary order regarding the respondent father's access to their two children.

The father had been exercising access supervised by his parents, but was recently charged with criminal harassment and repeatedly breached court orders by discussing prohibited topics with the children.

The Children's Aid Society verified concerns about the children's exposure to conflict and the grandparents' inability to supervise the father.

The court granted the motion, suspending in-person access until supervised access facilities reopen, and ordering daily videocalls.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the two youngest children to her care after the applicant father unilaterally withheld them.

The court found the father's actions were not in the children's best interests and appeared tactical, taking advantage of the COVID-19 situation.

The court ordered temporary shared parenting, with specific arrangements for the children to spend time with the mother, and directed the parties to use Our Family Wizard for communication.

No temporary custody order was made, and the father's allegations of substance abuse against the mother were unsubstantiated by a hair follicle test.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion regarding a weekday access-exchange location.

Both parties filed extensive materials that significantly exceeded the limits set by the Chief's Notice and a prior judicial direction, which the court deemed disproportionate and an abuse of process.

The court refused to hear the motion as constructed and ordered the parties to re-file their evidence, strictly limited to ten pages for affidavit and exhibits, with a three-page limit for reply material.

The father sought an urgent case conference regarding parenting arrangements for their seven-year-old daughter, citing ongoing conflict and the mother's inconsistent support for the child's relationship with him.

The mother opposed, arguing no court involvement was needed and that the father's parenting was deficient.

The court applied the "urgent or pressing" test, considering the Chief Justice's Notice and the Central East Region Notice, as interpreted in Thomas v. Wohleber and Clemente v O’Brien.

The court found the father's request to be "pressing" due to ongoing parenting conflict detrimental to the child's best interests, especially given the pandemic's impact on court operations.

The father's motion was granted, and directions were issued for a case conference to formalize a temporary parenting plan.

The husband brought an urgent motion to suspend his spousal support obligations, established by a 2013 consent order, citing a material change in circumstances due to his retirement and health issues, and the wife's significantly increased income.

The motion was brought during the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring the court to assess urgency under the Chief Justice's Notice and the Central East Region's "pressing" test.

The court found the husband met the "pressing" test and the four-component test for interim variation of a final support order, suspending the support order immediately.

The applicant mother brought an urgent, ex parte motion to vary a temporary order regarding the respondent father's in-person access to their children.

The motion was prompted by recent criminal charges against the father for breach of a restraining order and criminal harassment, and concerns from the York Region Children’s Aid Society regarding the father's lack of cooperation.

The court found the motion met the urgency test, temporarily suspending the father's in-person access while granting him nightly telephone or videocall access.

A schedule was set for the father to respond and for a return hearing of the motion.

This endorsement addresses a case conference and a motion regarding temporary parenting arrangements for the parties' two-year-old daughter following their separation.

After a case conference on May 15, 2020, failed to yield a consensus, the court determined that the father's request to proceed with a motion for temporary parenting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a 'pressing matter.' The court provided detailed procedural directions for the conduct of the motion, including timelines for material service, affidavit page limitations, and argument time.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking various relief, including the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, an urgent case conference, and orders restraining the respondent father's communication and filming of exchanges.

The court addressed preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and procedural fairness, finding it had jurisdiction to vary a final order on an interim basis in urgent cases.

The court found a strong prima facie case for a change in parenting arrangements due to high conflict and harm to the children, particularly the eldest.

The court suspended the existing shared parenting schedule, granted the mother primary residency and final decision-making authority on a temporary basis, and ordered the father to pay costs for delayed pleadings.

This endorsement arises from an urgent case conference concerning parenting issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Following the parties' inability to agree on a temporary parenting plan, the court issued procedural orders for the respondent father to bring a motion to determine the children's parenting arrangements and time with him during the pandemic, setting strict timelines and page limits for materials and submissions.