Erika Chozik

The respondent brought an urgent motion seeking recommencement of access and make-up weekends for the child, Alicia, after the applicant unilaterally withheld access due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, reviewed the materials and applied the test for urgency during the pandemic.

It found that the matter did not meet the high threshold for urgency, but emphasized that existing court orders for access must be respected.

The applicant's concerns about COVID-19 compliance were not supported by evidence and did not justify breaching the order.

The court ordered the applicant to provide two consecutive make-up weekends immediately and for alternating weekend access to resume thereafter.

The respondent's request for an urgent motion hearing was dismissed without prejudice, and no costs were ordered at this stage.

The parties separated after the respondent mother left the family home with the children to a women's shelter, alleging the applicant father was abusive and a threat due to his rigid religious beliefs.

Following an 18-day trial, the court rejected the mother's allegations of abuse and neglect, finding the father to be a competent and involved parent.

The court declined to follow the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, which had suggested sole custody for the mother and restricted access for the father.

Instead, the court ordered joint custody with equal parenting time on an alternating weekly schedule.

Due to the parties' inability to communicate, the court ordered parallel decision-making, granting the father authority over medical decisions and the mother authority over education.

Finally, the court imputed income to the underemployed father based on his historical earnings as a counsellor for the purpose of calculating child support.

The applicants, two firefighters charged with fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the date of the charges to the anticipated end of the trial was 35 months and one week.

After deducting three months of conceded defence delay, the net delay was 32 months and one week, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Crown argued that additional periods, including a two-month delay for a judicial pre-trial, a two-month adjournment of the preliminary inquiry, and a seven-week judicial reserve period, should be deducted as defence delay or exceptional circumstances.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, finding that the delays were not caused by the defence and that the Crown failed to take proactive steps to mitigate them.

The court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings.

This application concerned the interpretation of a will to determine whether a parcel of land was bequeathed to two sons as joint tenants or tenants in common, and whether a subsequent agreement between the sons severed any potential joint tenancy.

The applicant, Martin's estate trustee, sought a declaration that Martin's estate was entitled to an undivided one-half interest in the property, which the respondent, Bill, had appropriated.

The court applied the "armchair rule" and considered extrinsic evidence, concluding that the testator intended to create a tenancy in common.

Alternatively, the court found that the agreement between the brothers to divide the property constituted a severance of any joint tenancy that might have existed.

The application was granted, declaring Martin's estate entitled to a one-half interest.

The applicant challenged his mother's will, alleging undue influence and lack of capacity, but later abandoned the challenge.

The respondent, the estate trustee and primary beneficiary, moved for substantial indemnity costs against the applicant personally.

The applicant cross-moved for costs from the estate.

The court found no suspicious circumstances warranting the challenge, deemed the applicant's conduct vexatious and improperly motivated, including harassment outside the courtroom.

The respondent's motion for substantial indemnity costs was granted, and the applicant's motion for costs from the estate was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion to stay or dismiss the applicant's motion to change a final order, citing delay and non-compliance.

The applicant's motion to change initially sought changes to custody, access, and child support, but most issues became moot due to the children's ages and living arrangements.

The court declined to stay or dismiss the motion, finding it was not oppressive or vexatious, and that both parties had contributed to disclosure issues.

The court determined child support arrears owed by the respondent to the applicant for 2015-2018 to be $8,288, with 2014 arrears requiring a trial of an issue.

The respondent's request to compel production of an order and to prohibit future motions by the applicant was denied, as was the applicant's request to change driving arrangements.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary custody and an order restricting the respondent mother's access to their surviving child to a supervised access centre, following the tragic drowning death of their other child while in the mother's care.

The mother, who was facing criminal charges related to the death, brought a cross-motion for increased supervised access in the community.

The court dismissed the father's motion to restrict access to a centre, finding no evidence that the mother posed a risk of harm while supervised by approved third parties.

The court ordered that the mother have supervised access in the community and daily video contact, emphasizing the child's best interests and the principle of maximum contact.

In a divorce application involving complex corporate structures, the applicant husband brought an interim motion seeking to compel the respondent wife to transfer her shares in several closely held corporations to him, or alternatively, to wind up the companies.

He also sought a restraining order.

The wife sought a sealing order for a video exhibit, and the husband sought to consolidate the wife's wrongful dismissal action with the family proceeding.

The court dismissed the husband's requests for share transfers and winding up, finding no jurisdiction under the Family Law Act prior to equalization and no oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The restraining order was also dismissed.

The court granted the wife's request for a sealing order and the husband's request to transfer and hear the wrongful dismissal action together with the family proceeding.