Jorge A. Cartaya

The applicant brought a motion seeking the production of a corporate server (Decentral Server) for disclosure purposes, arguing the respondents had not adequately searched it.

This request had been previously dismissed by Justice Kiteley.

The applicant sought to revisit the prior decision, asserting new material facts, including the respondent's alleged failure to comply with an offer to conduct further searches and new expert evidence on e-discovery methods.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the alleged new facts were either not fundamentally different from what was previously argued or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence at the time of the original motion.

The court affirmed that interlocutory orders are binding unless new, material, and previously undiscoverable facts are presented.

This motion concerned a mobility dispute where the respondent father sought an order for the applicant mother to re-establish residency with the child in Brampton, while the applicant mother sought approval for her relocation to Toronto.

The court, applying the 'best interests of the child' principle and factors from Gordon v Goertz and Plumley v Plumley, found compelling reasons for the mother's move, including childcare and financial benefits.

The court dismissed the father's motion and permitted the child to reside with the mother in Toronto, determining that the relocation was in the child's best interests despite arguments regarding the status quo.

A father brought a motion for temporary custody of two young children and supervised access for the mother, following the mother's admission of alcoholism and evidence of cocaine use during a binge in late April 2020.

The mother brought a cross-motion for sole custody or alternatively, no order at that stage.

The court found that while the case was in its early stages and credibility issues regarding domestic violence allegations remained unresolved, the mother's substance misuse and the concerning circumstances warranted intervention.

The court declined to make a temporary custody order but ordered that the children remain with the father on a temporary without prejudice basis, with the mother having supervised access only.

The court appointed the Children's Lawyer and directed that the ruling be sent to child welfare agencies due to concerns about the mother's parenting capacity and the involvement of a former addictions counsellor in a romantic relationship with the mother.

During the COVID-19 court suspension, the respondent sought an urgent access motion for their baby daughter, and the applicant filed a cross-motion for temporary custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and property relief.

The court applied a higher urgency test based on the Superior Court of Justice Notice to the Profession dated March 15, 2020.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed as not meeting the urgency criteria, which required risks akin to child safety or well-being, or imminent financial harm.

The court emphasized the importance of parental negotiation to resolve access issues, especially during the crisis, citing recent jurisprudence on maintaining contact with both parents.