COVID-19

The applicant, charged with murder, sought a second bail review after his initial application was denied.

The court considered new evidence constituting a material change in circumstances, including a new supervision plan with his parents as sureties, their relocation to Oshawa to distance him from the crime scene, substantial financial pledges, and significant support from family friends.

Additionally, the court considered the increased vulnerability of the applicant, who suffers from asthma and bronchitis, to COVID-19 in detention.

The court found the new plan sufficient to address public confidence concerns and granted bail with strict conditions.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs after successfully compelling the respondent to close the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent had refused to sign closing documents, citing fear of COVID-19, which the court found to be a misrepresentation and an attempt to gain litigation advantage or punish the applicant.

The court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, justifying an award of full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The accused, Tyler Carter, pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference involving two 14-year-old complainants.

A joint submission for a sentence of two years less one day imprisonment followed by three years probation was presented.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the complainants' age and the multiple acts of sexual interference, and mitigating factors, such as the accused's guilty plea, youthfulness at the time of the offence, lack of prior criminal record for these types of offences, and motivation for treatment for complex mental health challenges.

The defence sought additional credit for pre-sentence custody due to COVID-19 risks in prison, which the court denied, finding the joint submission already lenient and further reduction disproportionate.

The court accepted the joint submission and imposed the recommended sentence, along with various ancillary orders including a DNA order, SOIRA registration, and communication/proximity prohibitions.

The court issued an addendum to its May 15, 2020 judgment, which had ordered the return of children to Warsaw, Poland, under the Hague Convention.

Due to COVID-19 travel complications, the parties could not agree on a return date.

The father sought return by July 15, 2020, while the mother requested a delay until late August 2020, citing safety concerns and inability to afford airfare.

The court ordered the children's return by July 31, 2020, finding no evidence to justify further delay.

The father offered to pay 50% of the children's economy airfare.

The court also directed the mother to contact the Polish consulate for travel documents and ensure compliance with the return order, with law enforcement authorized to assist.

The accused, Mowafag Saboon, sought judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code after being charged with first-degree murder and various firearm and drug trafficking offenses.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, including the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offenses, the circumstances of the offenses, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on detention conditions.

The proposed release plan, involving a $15,000 bond with three sureties and electronic monitoring, was deemed inadequate due to the sureties' inability to supervise and the accused's history of misconduct.

The court found a substantial risk of reoffending and that release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, particularly given the violent nature of the charges and the strong Crown case.

The application for judicial interim release was dismissed, and detention was ordered on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

This endorsement arises from an urgent case conference concerning parenting issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Following the parties' inability to agree on a temporary parenting plan, the court issued procedural orders for the respondent father to bring a motion to determine the children's parenting arrangements and time with him during the pandemic, setting strict timelines and page limits for materials and submissions.

The respondent mother, J.N., brought an urgent motion to reinstate her parenting time with her three children, which had been suspended by the Children's Aid Society (CAS) due to a blanket no in-person access policy implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The CAS supported the mother's request, but the respondent fathers, A.F. and M.S., opposed it, citing historical concerns about the mother's mental health, substance abuse, and alleged non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

The court applied principles from *Ribeiro v. Wright* and other cases, emphasizing that a blanket suspension of access without alternative measures is inconsistent with a child's best interests and that the onus is on the party seeking to restrict access to provide specific evidence of risk.

The court found no evidence that the mother would put the children at risk and determined it was in the children's best interests to resume face-to-face contact.

The motion was granted, reinstating the mother's pre-pandemic access schedule with agreed-upon terms regarding substance use and COVID-19 protocols.

The respondent father sought to resume access to the child, which the applicant mother had unilaterally suspended due to COVID-19 and the child's and mother's underlying health conditions.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the pandemic and health risks but emphasized the presumption of continuing parenting arrangements.

It ordered a modified access schedule, suspending mid-week in-person access in favor of virtual contact and resuming weekend in-person access with strict adherence to COVID-19 safety protocols, facilitated by the father's adult daughter.

The father's request for a police assist order was dismissed.

The applicant sought an urgent case conference to establish supervised access to her children and to obtain a section 30 CLRA assessment.

The court denied the urgent motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the urgency test, particularly given the long period of no contact with the children and the lack of evidence regarding available supervisory services or assessors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized that the issues were not urgent as defined by the Notices to the Profession and lacked practical feasibility.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for a case conference to increase access time for his child and to change the access exchange facilitator.

The respondent mother disputed the urgency of the request, citing the Chief Justice's Notice regarding COVID-19 court operations.

The court applied the urgency criteria from the Chief's Notice and Thomas v. Wohleber, finding that the father's concerns were not immediate, serious, or material, and that the request for expanded parenting time was premature given an ongoing OCL investigation.

The motion was dismissed, and the father was ordered to pay costs to the mother.

The Respondent Mother brought an urgent motion seeking clarification on access arrangements after the Durham Children's Aid Society suspended all face-to-face access due to COVID-19.

The court clarified its previous endorsement, stating that parties should consider all options for meaningful contact, including in-person visits, while prioritizing child safety and adhering to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The endorsement reiterated principles from Ribeiro v. Wright regarding parenting arrangements during the pandemic.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking compliance with an existing access order and a police-assist order, alleging the applicant mother was denying access due to COVID-19 concerns.

The mother argued the father had not taken adequate safety measures.

The court found the matter urgent and, while affirming the importance of existing orders, acknowledged the mother's reasonable safety concerns.

The court ordered the father to meticulously adhere to COVID-19 safety measures and to provide the mother with written updates on the child's activities and precautions after each visit.

The father's request for a police-assist order was dismissed, as it was deemed not in the child's best interests given the circumstances and the mother's non-malicious intent.

The Applicant sought an urgent order for the sale of a jointly owned property and an amendment to her application, citing dire financial circumstances due to mortgage arrears and lack of income.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the matter was not urgent, the application was procedurally improper given a prior divorce, and that it constituted a malicious collateral attack.

The court found the matter urgent, applying the Thomas v. Wohleber test, noting the immediate risk of losing equity.

It permitted the amendment and ordered the sale of the property, rejecting the Respondent's procedural objections and finding no malicious conduct.

The Applicant was granted sole authority for the sale above a specified price, with the Respondent given a limited opportunity to purchase the property first.

The applicant mother sought to suspend the respondent father's access to their medically fragile child for three weeks due to the child's unusually high risk from the Covid-19 virus.

The respondent father cross-moved to continue access.

The court found both parents had exposed the child to unnecessary risks and failed to make full disclosure.

Balancing the child's best interests, including the need for both parents' support during disorienting times, against the risks of Covid-19, the court dismissed the mother's motion and ordered that the existing access schedule continue with strict safety protocols for both parents and during transportation.

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.

The applicant sought urgent relief for the resumption of access to his 7-year-old daughter after a 9-month cessation following a physical altercation during an access transition.

The respondent opposed, citing the child's trauma and anxiety, relying on reports from a pediatrician and social worker.

The court found the reports to be one-sided and unreliable, and criticized the respondent for obstructing mediation and failing to encourage access, deeming her actions a "wrongful retention" of the child.

The court ordered immediate daily virtual access and mandated mediation, with costs awarded against the respondent.

The applicant mother brought urgent motions for the partial release of funds held in trust from the sale of the parties’ former matrimonial home.

The court acknowledged the urgency of the request, given the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, and directed the respondent father to file a response to the motions by 3:00 p.m. on the same day.

The court emphasized the need for parties to communicate in good faith and propose realistic solutions during these times, citing principles from *Ribeiro v. Wright*.

A written decision was to be issued after the respondent's submissions.

During the COVID-19 suspension of court operations, the respondent brought multiple emergency motions concerning access and financial issues.

The Triage Judge denied these motions, reiterating previous endorsements that financial and property issues were not urgent and that the existing access order, which the applicant was prepared to continue, was sufficient.

The court emphasized that the respondent had not provided sufficient evidence to warrant an urgent variation of the existing access order and warned both parties about the potential for being declared vexatious litigants due to repeated inappropriate urgent motions.

The accused sought a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, 48 years old with 84 prior convictions including breaches of recognizance and escapes, was found in possession of significant quantities of crystal methamphetamine, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and fentanyl, along with drug paraphernalia.

The court considered the strong Crown case, the accused's extensive criminal record, and the unsuitability of the proposed surety.

Despite potential trial delays due to the pandemic and the prospect of COVID-19 in detention, the court found continued detention necessary on the secondary ground due to the high risk of reoffending and lack of respect for court orders.

The bail review was dismissed.

The applicant sought urgent relief for the return of two children, alleging unlawful withholding by the respondent amidst the COVID-19 situation.

The court found the matter urgent and granted the applicant's interim motion, ordering the immediate return of the children to the applicant's care and control, maintaining the status quo.

The respondent's claim of a 50/50 parenting agreement was not supported by the evidence.