David A. Jarvis

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.