COVID-19

The Plaintiffs in multiple class actions brought an omnibus motion for approval of a proposed notice plan, including direct notice and production orders from Defendants, following a complex certification decision where some actions were certified, some partially, and some dismissed.

The court denied the request for direct notice and associated production orders, finding it would impose a substantial and undue burden on defendants, particularly those against whom certification was denied.

The court also noted that such production could be seen as an attempt to solicit new representative plaintiffs or re-litigate issues already decided at the certification stage.

An indirect notice strategy was approved, and costs for the notice plan were allocated, with the Plaintiffs bearing a larger share.

The Plaintiff, Old Republic Insurance Company of Canada (ORIC), brought a motion seeking a further and better affidavit of documents from the Defendant, Jerry Van Dyke Travel Service Ltd. (JVD), regarding trips cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

ORIC, an insurer, sought documents related to payments retained by JVD from customers and correspondence between JVD and the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO).

ORIC argued these documents were relevant to its claims of unjust enrichment, breach of trust, and the application of statutory obligations under the Travel Industry Act, particularly concerning coordination of benefits.

JVD opposed, arguing the requests were premature or sought non-existent documents, and that TICO communications were irrelevant.

The court granted ORIC's motion, finding that information on retained payments, even if requiring generation from JVD's electronic systems, constituted a relevant 'document' under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and that TICO communications were relevant to the interpretation and application of the Travel Industry Act, regardless of their binding nature on the court.

JVD was ordered to produce the requested documents.

The plaintiff, a systems technician, brought a motion for summary judgment against his former employer for wrongful dismissal, aggravated, punitive, and/or moral damages.

The plaintiff was terminated after refusing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy implemented by the employer's primary client, Bell, which accounted for over 99% of the employer's business.

The employer argued that the employment contract was frustrated due to the plaintiff's inability to perform essential duties.

The court found that Bell's vaccination policy was an unforeseen supervening event beyond the parties' control, leading to a radical change in the employment contract.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the action was dismissed, as the employment contract was deemed frustrated, negating any entitlement to common law reasonable notice.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to change a long-standing final parenting order, seeking to retain the three children in Hamilton, Ontario, after a summer visit, rather than returning them to the respondent mother in St. Louis, Missouri, where they had habitually resided for seven years.

The father cited concerns including the oldest child's sexual orientation, homeschooling, housing, the mother's responsibilities, dental care, and COVID-19 risks in Missouri.

The respondent mother cross-moved to dismiss the father's motion and for the Ontario court to decline jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no material change in circumstances or urgency, and declined jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, ordering the immediate return of the children to the mother in St. Louis.

The court determined costs for previous motions where the applicant mother's motion was dismissed and the respondent father's responding motion was successful.

The father sought full recovery costs due to the mother's unreasonable behaviour and his offer to settle being exceeded.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable, including ignoring a separation agreement and proposing unsafe travel for children during COVID-19, but not rising to bad faith.

Considering the father's superior offer to settle and the mother's unreasonable conduct, the court fixed the father's costs at $6,500, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The accused sought release from custody under s. 525 of the Criminal Code, having been detained on serious drug and firearm charges.

He presented a new release plan with multiple sureties, electronic monitoring, and medical evidence of hypertension, which heightened his risk from COVID-19.

The court considered the new plan and the COVID-19 risk but ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the accused's continued detention was necessary on secondary grounds due to a substantial likelihood of re-offending, particularly given his alleged breaches of prior release conditions and continued involvement in the drug trade.

The accused, Danna Millan, sought a bail review after being detained on tertiary grounds for serious charges including drug trafficking, firearms offences, aggravated assault, kidnapping, and extortion.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 crisis and the addition of a third surety.

The court found that the proposed release plan, including three sureties and strict house arrest, sufficiently addressed the tertiary grounds, and granted release.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking the immediate sale of two jointly owned properties, including the matrimonial home where the applicant mother resided with their children, and an investment condominium.

The father cited severe financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which drastically reduced his income as an optometrist.

The mother opposed the sale, arguing no urgency, potential homelessness for the children, and questioning the father's financial claims.

The court granted the father's motion, finding that economic necessity required the sale of both properties to alleviate debt and free up equity, and that the mother failed to establish sufficient legal reason or prejudice to prevent the sale.

The court emphasized the need for parties to face financial realities, especially during the pandemic, and to move towards an efficient resolution.

This decision concerns a reconsideration of an urgency determination in a family law matter during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent father sought leave to bring an urgent motion regarding parenting time and school issues for his two children.

Initially, the court found no urgency.

Upon clarification from respondent's counsel regarding a significant number of missed parenting days for one child (Ella), the court reconsidered its decision.

The court found the issue of Ella's parenting time to be urgent, allowing a motion on this specific issue to proceed, but maintained that the school and other child's parenting time issues were not urgent.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to reinstate alternate weekend access with her child, which the applicant father had unilaterally suspended due to alleged COVID-19 concerns and the child's purported fears.

The court found the father's reasons for suspending access suspect, emphasizing that court orders must be obeyed and that a parent cannot delegate access decisions to a child.

The motion was granted, reinstating access and ordering make-up weekends.

The respondent's Form 14B motion was deemed a motion to change, and the applicant's answer was struck, though he retained the right to seek child support.

The applicant mother sought interim unsupervised access to her two children, while the respondent father sought supervised access.

The court found urgency due to COVID-19 and heard the motions via teleconference.

Despite allegations of mental health issues and past conflict, the court was not persuaded that supervised access was necessary, considering the children's ages, the mother's prior involvement, and two positive supervised visits.

Unsupervised, staged access was granted to the mother, with a requirement to provide evidence of steps taken to address mental health issues.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to suspend the respondent's parenting time with their four-year-old daughter or, alternatively, an order that the respondent adhere to strict COVID-19 protocols.

The applicant, a family physician with stage 3 breast cancer, was part of a high-risk group and alleged the respondent was not following public health directives by self-isolating with his new partner's parents and daughter at a cottage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the respondent's arrangements were reasonable, consistent with public health guidelines, and in the child's best interests to maintain existing parenting arrangements.

The court emphasized the presumption that existing parenting orders should be respected during the pandemic and the need for parents to communicate responsibly.

The respondent sought leave to proceed with an urgent motion regarding access to the two younger children, alleging the applicant withheld access due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court, acting as a triage justice, determined the matter was presumptively urgent as it involved the alleged wrongful retention of children contrary to a final order.

The motion was allowed to proceed on the issue of access for the two younger children, and timelines for submissions were set.

This endorsement followed an urgent case conference, initiated by the respondent father, concerning parenting issues for the parties' two young children amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court provided recommendations and directed counsel to ascertain the potential for agreement on the conferenced issues, with further directions to follow based on the parties' feedback.

The order emphasized its immediate enforceability due to the emergency circumstances.

The applicant brought a motion seeking, among other things, an extension of time to file an election under the Family Law Act.

The court, acting as a triage judge during the COVID-19 pandemic, determined that an emergency order issued under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act had already suspended limitation periods retroactively to March 16, 2020.

This order effectively tolled the time for the applicant's election, rendering that portion of the motion non-urgent.

The balance of the motion, concerning chattels and asset preservation, was adjourned for further discussions between counsel.

The applicant mother brought a motion to suspend the respondent father's access to their child, AR, due to his work as an emergency room physician during the COVID-19 pandemic, or alternatively, to enforce the regular school-based access schedule.

The respondent father requested the holiday access schedule.

The court dismissed the motion to suspend access, finding the applicant's evidence inadequate to demonstrate a COVID-19 risk.

The court also rejected both parties' interpretations of the consent order's access provisions during school closures.

Instead, the court ordered equal, shared access on an alternating weekly basis until AR's school reopens, at which point the original school access schedule would resume.

The respondent father sought an urgent order for the resumption of parenting time for the parties' 12-year-old child, Porter, after the applicant mother unilaterally withheld access citing COVID-19 concerns.

The court, applying principles from Ribeiro v. Wright, affirmed the presumption of maintaining existing parenting arrangements.

While the mother's initial COVID-19 concerns were addressed, her subsequent arguments based on the child's preferences, anxiety, and asthma were deemed non-urgent and lacking specific evidence.

The court ordered the immediate resumption of the father's parenting time with a minor schedule adjustment, but denied requests for make-up time and a police enforcement clause.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for access to his three children, which was opposed by the respondent mother who also sought supervised, graduated access and child support.

The court, acting as Triage Judge under COVID-19 protocols, determined that the matter was not urgent, citing the absence of a prior parenting order, lack of immediate safety or well-being concerns, the father's unreasonable request for immediate overnight access given serious abuse allegations, and his failure to propose a realistic parenting plan considering COVID-19 precautions.

The urgent motion was dismissed, and parties were encouraged to negotiate a safe, graduated parenting schedule, potentially involving virtual contact and third-party supervision for face-to-face contact.

The respondent mother sought urgent temporary sole custody, primary residence, and an order to travel with the parties' child (Y, under three) to Vancouver, B.C., for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with a suspension of the applicant father's in-person parenting time and a restraining order.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion for an equal parenting schedule and a prohibition on removing the child from Ontario.

The court, finding the matter urgent, dismissed the mother's request to travel, citing public health risks, the federal advisory against non-essential travel, and the child's need for stability and continued contact with both parents.

The court set aside a prior joint custody order due to concerns about the father's conduct towards the mother but declined to grant sole custody, requiring further testing of allegations.

A temporary parenting schedule was established, granting the father parenting time from Thursday evening to Sunday evening weekly, with exchanges facilitated by his sister.

Requests for a s. 30 assessment, Office of the Children's Lawyer referral, and a new restraining order were dismissed without prejudice, noting the impracticality of assessments during the pandemic and the existence of a criminal restraining order.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons brought a motion to settle an order flowing from previous reasons for judgment and to vary its terms due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The motion addressed the wording of the order regarding the handling of Patient A's medical file, specifically the inclusion of a caveat allowing transfer of records "to the extent necessary for the College to carry out its regulatory functions." The court found the College's proposed wording, though an addition, accurately captured the implicit logic of the prior reasons.

Additionally, due to public health concerns, the court varied the order to allow the College's investigator, Greg Hutchinson, to be the repository for Patient A's file instead of SJO's counsel, and permitted the investigator to share materials with the College's expert, Dr. Sian Rawkins.

The court also clarified that newly discovered emails from SJO's hospital account were part of the file covered by the ruling and that the restrictions on file handling did not apply past the investigation stage.

An amended Reasons for Judgment was also ordered to address privacy concerns.