Harrison Notkin

The Applicant sought an adjournment of a Trial Scheduling Conference (TSC) and leave for a second Settlement Conference, citing outstanding disclosure and the need for expert reports.

The Respondent opposed, seeking dismissal of the Applicant's requests, costs, and orders regarding travel consent and in-person questioning.

The court dismissed both the Applicant's and Respondent's 14B motions, emphasizing the parties' history of non-compliance with court orders and the Family Law Rules.

The TSC was ordered to proceed as scheduled, and no costs were awarded due to both parties' conduct.

The case involved two motions: the Applicant sought temporary spousal and child support retroactive to June 1, 2021, and the Respondent sought to remove the Applicant's counsel, claim tort damages for intrusion upon seclusion, and prevent reliance on improperly obtained emails.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for tort damages as improperly pleaded and premature, and dismissed the motion to remove counsel, finding no evidence of confidential information being shared with counsel.

The court granted the Applicant's motion for interim spousal support of $4,000 per month and child support of $329 per month, both retroactive to July 1, 2021, after imputing an income of $14,500 to the Applicant and deducting the child's ODSP benefits from the child support calculation.

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 accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at his apartment, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) was insufficient.

The warrant was based on a tip from a confidential informant who had purchased crack cocaine from the accused.

Applying the Debot test, the court found the informant's information was highly compelling and sufficiently corroborated by police surveillance, compensating for weaknesses in the informant's inherent credibility.

The court concluded there was a solid basis for the justice of the peace to issue the warrant and dismissed the application.