COVID-19

The defendant Certas brought a motion seeking an order for the Ontario Provincial Police and the Ministry of the Attorney General to produce records related to a motor vehicle accident investigation.

The OPP did not oppose the motion, provided privacy interests were protected.

However, the Crown Law Office (Civil), representing the Ministry, did not respond, leading the court to question the efficacy of service.

The court clarified that during the Covid-19 emergency, service on the Crown for civil proceedings must be effected by email to a specific address.

The motion was not decided on its merits but was effectively stalled pending proper service on the Crown.

The Applicant sought orders to vary a previous order to allow virtual showings and videographer access for the sale of the matrimonial home, and for carriage of sale if the Respondent did not comply.

The Respondent opposed these requests and sought to appoint co-agents for the sale.

The court granted the Applicant's request for virtual showings and videographer access with modifications, dismissing the request for carriage of sale.

The Respondent's request for co-agents was dismissed.

The court emphasized adapting marketing strategies to the COVID-19 pandemic while ensuring safety.

The Applicant Father sought resumption of access to his daughter, which had ceased after an altercation.

The court, following an earlier decision finding the Respondent Mother wrongfully withholding access, noted progress in virtual access and mediation.

However, it also addressed troubling behavior from both counsel and the Mother's non-compliance with a previous cost order.

The court ordered the Mother to pay outstanding costs, for parties to continue mediation, and scheduled a further return of motion to address access.

The respondent brought two motions: one for contempt against the applicant for alleged breaches of an access order and non-payment, and an urgent motion for resumption of in-person access to the children, which the applicant had suspended due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding insufficient particularization of access breaches and noting that the payment issue was a "payment order" excluded from contempt provisions.

The urgent motion for access was granted, with the court emphasizing the presumption that existing orders should continue and that the applicant failed to provide specific evidence of the respondent's non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols to justify suspending access.

This continued case conference endorsement addresses the plaintiff's request to adjourn a multi-day leave motion in a proposed class action until an in-person hearing is possible, due to concerns about conducting a complex hearing virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant was prepared to proceed virtually.

The court, acknowledging the evolving confidence in virtual hearings and the need for courts to operate, ordered the motion to proceed by videoconference on the previously scheduled dates of June 23 and 24, 2020, finding that remote procedures are not inherently unfair and practical issues can be addressed through cooperation.

The applicant sought to stay a Final Order awarding joint legal custody and increased parenting time to the respondent, pending an appeal.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay in parenting cases, considering whether the appeal raised a serious issue, if irreparable harm would occur, and the balance of convenience, with the child's best interests as the overriding factor.

While the appeal did not raise a serious issue regarding joint decision-making or the general increase in contact, it did meet the threshold for specific residential arrangements due to fresh evidence of the child's increased anxiety and regressive behaviors post-order implementation, exacerbated by COVID-19 changes.

The motion to stay joint decision-making was dismissed, but a partial, time-limited stay was granted for future incremental increases in the respondent's overnight access and summer holiday access, allowing the child more time to adjust.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking interim care and custody of a newborn child, K.B., and discretionary supervised access for the parents.

The Mother, E.B., conceded the child was in need of protection but sought the child's return under a supervision order, or frequent access if placed in Society care.

The court found the child should remain in the interim care of the Society, citing concerns about the Mother's past care of another child and recent improvements being too new.

The court also ordered more diligent in-person access for the Mother, criticizing the Society's blanket no-in-person access policy during COVID-19 without medical evidence.

The applicant sought leave to commence an urgent constitutional application challenging the regulation governing physiotherapy licensing in Ontario, while an appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) was ongoing.

The court denied the motion for urgency and permission to file the application, finding it premature and an attempt to circumvent the administrative tribunal process.

The court emphasized that parties should exhaust tribunal proceedings before seeking judicial review or constitutional challenges in court, especially when the tribunal can address constitutional rights related to its process.

The court also noted the lack of a full evidentiary basis for the proposed constitutional challenge and the absence of demonstrated substantial prejudice.

The applicant landlord sought an urgent order to lift a province-wide eviction moratorium to evict the respondent tenant.

The tenant had defaulted on a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The landlord, a front-line hospital worker, required the unit for personal occupation after selling their own home, citing nowhere else to go and a need to self-isolate from elderly parents.

The respondent tenant did not file responding material or attend the hearing.

The court granted the landlord's application, finding that the landlord had established urgent and compelling circumstances, and the tenant failed to discharge the evidential burden to show adverse impact on societal interests by the eviction.

The Respondent sought an urgent motion for equal parenting time and the Applicant raised a conflict of interest against the Respondent's counsel.

The court dismissed the conflict of interest claim, finding the Applicant had not met her onus.

Regarding parenting time, the court found the Respondent had not established equal parenting time but had been exercising more than previously ordered.

The court varied prior orders to establish a structured parenting schedule for the Respondent, including one overnight and one mid-week visit per week, and time on special occasions, in the children's best interests.

The respondent brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension seeking to set aside a final order, permission to serve responding materials, and an order to prevent the applicant from depleting family assets.

The court found the matter urgent, citing potential significant financial hardship to the respondent if deferred.

The court ordered a temporary freeze on asset removal and directed the matter to a case conference, followed by a motion hearing if unresolved.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the reinstatement of his access to the parties' five-year-old child, as stipulated in a final order, which the respondent mother had unilaterally suspended due to concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent argued that the final order was no longer effective due to a de facto parenting arrangement and proposed limited, supervised access.

The court affirmed that existing court orders must be obeyed and that the COVID-19 pandemic does not automatically suspend in-person parenting time or permit unilateral changes to court-ordered access.

The court declared the final order to be in full force and effect, dismissed the respondent's proposed limited access, and denied the applicant's request for an interim police assistance order, while directing the applicant to issue a formal application.

The respondent mother brought a contempt motion against the applicant father for failing to return their two children after an access visit, in breach of a prior consent order.

The father argued he withheld the children due to COVID-19 risks associated with the mother's employment and the children's expressed desire to stay with him.

The court found the father deliberately misled the court, engaged in self-help, and that his motives were likely to gain a litigation advantage regarding primary residency and child tax benefits.

The court found the father in contempt, ordered the immediate return of the children, and adjourned for submissions on sanctions and costs, including potential police enforcement.

The Applicant brought an urgent 14B motion for child support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the issues insufficiently urgent to be heard during the COVID-19 court closure, which required "dire" financial circumstances.

The court noted that the parties had previously agreed to delay the sale of the home and that the Applicant had not complied with disclosure requirements.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 suspension of court operations to reinstate his access to his two children, aged 9 and 11.

The mother had unilaterally terminated a long-standing joint custody and access arrangement, citing the children's concerns about COVID-19 and a recent trip to Mexico.

The Children's Aid Society had previously closed a file regarding unverified allegations against the father and expected the family to follow the existing order.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined the matter was potentially urgent due to the sudden interruption of a generous timesharing arrangement.

The motion was allowed to proceed, with timelines set for the mother to file responding materials.

The judge emphasized the overwhelming caselaw presumption that parenting arrangements should continue during COVID-19 unless health or safety issues are proven.

This is a triage endorsement concerning an urgent motion brought by the respondent father during the COVID-19 pandemic to liberalize access to the parties' child, including overnight visits and driving privileges, based on a psychiatrist's report.

The applicant mother opposed, challenging the report and seeking disclosure from the father's psychologist.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined that the specific issues of liberalizing access were not urgent, being complex matters without significant prejudice if delayed.

However, the court clarified that any reduction in the father's existing time-sharing arrangement would be presumptively urgent.

The father's motion to proceed was not authorized at this time, without prejudice to future urgent requests if existing access was threatened.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for a case conference to address access facilitation after his previously proposed facilitator, his sister, tested positive for COVID-19 and required quarantine.

The respondent mother disputed the urgency, arguing the father acted hastily and failed to propose alternative facilitators.

The court, applying principles from Balbontin v. Luwawa and Ribeiro v. Wright regarding COVID-19 and parenting, found the matter urgent.

The father's motion was granted, and an urgent case conference was scheduled to address access facilitation, with specific directions for the parties' submissions.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent father's regular parenting time with their two young daughters, citing concerns about COVID-19 protocol compliance and wishing to self-isolate with the children.

The father opposed, stating he followed protocols and the regular schedule should continue.

The court found the matter urgent due to the parties' history of communication dysfunction and the stress of exchanges during the pandemic, but did not grant the suspension.

Instead, it directed an urgent case conference to focus on achieving compliance with the existing equal parenting time order amidst COVID-19 restrictions, rather than varying the final order.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to restore court-ordered access to the child, which the respondent father had unilaterally suspended.

The father alleged the mother violated a condition regarding her partner's presence, despite a Children's Aid Society investigation finding the allegations "not verified." The court, acting as Triage Judge, found the matter "potentially urgent" given the ongoing denial of access and scheduled it for a full hearing, setting timelines for responding materials.

The court also provided guidance on issues to be addressed at the hearing, including CAS recommendations, reconciliation counselling, and the impropriety of self-help remedies for non-compliance with orders.

The applicant mother sought to suspend the respondent father's in-person access to their child due to COVID-19 concerns, requesting replacement with Skype contact.

The respondent father sought to reinstate his court-ordered access.

The court found that the mother improperly refused access and failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, clear hardship, or urgency for varying the existing order.

The court emphasized the duty to obey court orders and the maximum contact principle, even during a pandemic.

The father's motion to reinstate access was granted with conditions, and the mother's request to suspend access was denied.