COVID-19

The applicant sought a divorce on grounds of cruelty or one-year separation.

The application was procedurally deficient due to unsworn and unwitnessed affidavits, highlighting an access to justice barrier for self-represented litigants of modest means, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court was prepared to grant the divorce on the separation ground but required properly commissioned affidavits or a hearing to swear them.

The judge directed court staff to assist the applicant in commissioning the affidavits, or offered to conduct a Zoom hearing herself to overcome this barrier.

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 court reconsidered its previous decision to decline scheduling a summary judgment motion due to the significant and indefinite delays in civil trials caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Initially, the court deemed a trial more efficient, but the changed circumstances rendered trial scheduling unrealistic for the foreseeable future.

Consequently, leave was granted to the defendants to bring a summary judgment motion under Rule 20 to test insurance defences, as this mechanism was now considered more efficient for streamlining issues given the prolonged trial backlog.

Directions were provided for electronic filing and virtual hearing protocols.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs for an urgent motion for the return of children, which was granted due to the respondent father's deliberate and prolonged breach of a final court order.

The father overheld the children for over four weeks in an undisclosed location, 1,700 km away, without legal justification, and failed to facilitate calls.

The court found the father's actions constituted bad faith, designed to pressure the mother into changing the access terms of their final order, and awarded full indemnity costs of $6,850.06 to the applicant.

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 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, A.F., sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for serious firearm and drug-related offences.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the extensive delay in the preliminary inquiry, the withdrawal of a more serious charge, and an enhanced release plan including electronic monitoring.

The court acknowledged the heightened risk to inmates from COVID-19 and the applicant's health concerns and period of unexplained segregation.

Balancing these factors against the seriousness of the charges and the applicant's history of non-compliance, the court was persuaded that the stringent release plan, coupled with electronic monitoring, would sufficiently address public safety and confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review application was granted.

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.

The applicant sought an urgent motion for child support during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, declined the request for urgency, finding that while child support is important, the long-standing nature of the issue (over two years since separation) did not meet the criteria for "urgent" as defined by the Rules and COVID-19 protocols.

Procedural issues regarding proper service and the respondent's counsel of record were also noted.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for a temporary order for primary residential care of the three children, with specific parenting time for the respondent father.

The father opposed, seeking a different schedule, including equal residential time when he returned to work.

The court found serious credibility issues with the father's evidence and noted his conduct in overholding and withholding the children.

The mother's account of primary caregiving prior to separation was accepted.

The court granted the mother primary residential care, finding it to be in the children's best interests, and dismissed the father's counter-proposal for immediate or future equal residential time due to the children's need for stability.

The applicant sought an urgent motion to address the respondent's withholding of parenting time for their son, alleging a significant breach of a final joint custody order.

The court found the situation met the urgency criteria established during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing the motion to proceed in writing.

A timetable was set for the respondent's materials and any reply, with parties encouraged to file a proposed draft order for make-up access.

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 respondent brought an urgent motion seeking an order for the applicant to comply with previous court orders and return their youngest son, Calvin, to her residence, with police enforcement if necessary.

The applicant opposed and filed a cross-motion to vary parenting time, which was deemed non-urgent.

The court granted the respondent's motion, finding the applicant's reasons for retaining the child unsubstantiated and noting a history of high conflict and unproven allegations of abuse.

The court ordered Calvin's immediate return and authorized police assistance for enforcement.

The Superintendent of Bankruptcy brought a motion seeking orders to provide flexibility to the administration of Ontario insolvency estates affected by COVID-19.

The relief sought included increasing payment defaults/time for deemed annulment of consumer proposals under s. 66.31(1) BIA, extending timelines for creditor meetings (ss. 51, 66.15, 102 BIA) and mediations (rules 105(4), (10) BIGR), extending time for court referrals (s. 170.1(3) BIA), applying the order to all active and future insolvency filings until June 30, 2020, and dispensing with notice.

The court granted the requested relief, finding jurisdiction under ss. 66.31(1) and 187(11) of the BIA, and its inherent jurisdiction, given the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of Ms. Bilek’s motion to stay an order removing a preservation order against Mr. Booth.

The court found Mr. Philbert’s (counsel for Mr. Booth) costs demand of $8,615.60 to be highly unreasonable and disproportionate, noting his failure to genuinely attempt resolution as instructed.

Ms. Chambers’ (counsel for Ms. Bilek) proposal of $3,000 was deemed reasonable.

The court fixed Mr. Booth’s costs at $3,000, inclusive, emphasizing the need for counsel to resolve issues, especially during strained court resources.

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.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to establish parenting arrangements for a child, S.J.M.B., after the applicant father unilaterally withheld access due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, found the matter urgent under the "Notice to the Profession" guidelines, as it involved the alleged wrongful retention of a child and a unilateral alteration of the status quo.

The court set a schedule for the parties to deliver materials for the motion, reserving the right to reconsider urgency once all materials are filed.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking sole custody and a return to the pre-pandemic parenting schedule, alleging the respondent father was withholding the children due to her essential nursing work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, found the matter urgent, citing the mother's risk of losing employment and the children's well-being.

The court directed the respondent to file responding materials and scheduled an expedited teleconference hearing, emphasizing the need for both parties' perspectives before a temporary decision.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for temporary parenting and child/spousal support.

The respondent initially opposed the urgency but later agreed to an expedited hearing for both the applicant's motion and an anticipated cross-motion.

The court found both parenting and support issues to be urgent, particularly given the children's living arrangements and the applicant's need for income to secure permanent accommodation.

The court scheduled the motions, set deadlines for material filing, and ordered the initialization of the parties' names in the style of cause.

The court also provided guidance on the s. 30 assessment and encouraged mediation.