Lene Madsen

The applicant brought a motion to incorporate and enforce the terms of interim and final family arbitration awards.

The respondent, who was self-represented, requested an adjournment which was denied.

The court granted the motion, incorporating the arbitration awards into a court order and directing the respondent to comply within ten days.

The court also dispensed with the respondent's consent for the release of funds held in an Australian bank and ordered the respondent to provide disclosure regarding the sale of the former matrimonial home.

The applicant brought an unopposed motion to enforce a final order for lump sum spousal support and equalization against the respondent and his wholly-owned corporation.

The court dismissed the request to transfer funds from the respondent's locked-in retirement account (LIRA) because the LIRA was not in pay.

However, the court pierced the corporate veil, allowing the order to be enforced against the respondent's corporation, as the respondent had arranged for his employment income to be paid to the corporation to avoid his family law obligations.

The court also ordered that the lump sum support be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting order to grant him equal parenting time, relying primarily on the 11-year-old child's views and preferences as reported by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The respondent mother opposed the motion, alleging the child was fearful of the father and that the OCL did not accurately capture the child's true views.

The court dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence to justify changing a three-year status quo pending trial, noting the lack of a full OCL assessment report and the need for cross-examination on highly contested evidence.

The father brought a motion to enforce a Nigerian custody order and seek the return of the parties' two children to Nigeria after the mother unilaterally moved them to Ontario.

The mother brought a cross-motion for temporary custody, arguing the children would face serious harm if returned due to country conditions and alleged past domestic violence.

The court recognized the Nigerian order under s. 41 of the Children's Law Reform Act, found the children were wrongfully removed, and concluded the mother failed to establish a risk of serious harm under s. 23.

The father's motion was granted and the children were ordered returned to Nigeria.

The applicant, Daniel L. Thornhill, brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking primary residence of the children and specific access arrangements.

He raised concerns about the respondent, Rena Schmidt, allowing a new partner and his son to move into her home without providing information on public health precautions, particularly given one child's pre-existing health vulnerabilities.

The court found the motion urgent due to these specific concerns, but did not grant the substantive relief immediately.

Instead, it directed the parties to a settlement conference, followed by a motion hearing if no agreement is reached on interim parenting arrangements.

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.

During the COVID-19 suspension of court operations, the applicant brought an ex parte urgent motion seeking exclusive possession and authority to sell the family home, contribution to carrying costs, and proceeds held in trust.

The court found the matter urgent due to the applicant's financial hardship, job loss, and the primary respondent's repeated breaches of bail conditions and vandalism of the home.

The court granted temporary exclusive possession and a temporary restraining order against the primary respondent, Shawn David Grant, but mandated service of materials on all respondents for a full hearing by teleconference.

The applicant mother sought urgent relief, including the return of children, primary residency, and police enforcement, or in the alternative, liberal access, after the respondent father allegedly withheld the children following the mother's alcohol relapse.

The court, acting as Triage Judge under COVID-19 protocols, determined the matter was urgent, citing the mother's lack of knowledge regarding the children's whereabouts and the father's unilateral withholding.

The court ordered expedited service and filing of responding materials from the father and scheduled a teleconference hearing, emphasizing the need for both parties' evidence before a temporary decision.

The applicant mother sought urgent ex parte orders for a restraining order against the respondent father, interim sole custody, supervised access at her discretion, and permission for email service, citing escalating aggressive behavior and safety concerns for herself and the child.

The court, acting as Triage Judge under COVID-19 protocols, found the matter urgent regarding the restraining order, child residency, and father's access.

It granted temporary, without prejudice orders for a restraining order, the child to remain with the mother, and supervised access at the mother's discretion, along with email service.

The court deemed custody and child support not urgent at this stage.

The applicant mother sought an urgent order to suspend the respondent father's access to their nine-year-old child, B., due to B.'s respiratory issues and concerns about potential COVID-19 exposure through the father's household and his partner's alleged work.

The respondent father requested the existing parenting schedule be maintained.

The court, acting as Triage Judge under COVID-19 protocols, determined the matter was urgent and set out next steps for a hearing on the merits, requiring proper affidavit materials from both parties to clarify health circumstances and household precautions.

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 responding party mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension seeking the return of the parties' child, a police enforcement order, and an order preventing the moving party father from taking the child to his cottage.

The dispute arose over the parenting schedule during school closures.

The triage judge found the matter was not urgent because it had become moot; the father agreed in his responding materials to return the child and revert to the existing court-ordered schedule.

The court declined to award costs to the father, noting he only disclosed his cottage address after the motion was brought and the motion was necessary to secure his compliance with the existing order.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order for police enforcement of existing access exchange terms or a temporary suspension of access if the respondent father failed to return the children.

The court, acting as Triage Judge during the COVID-19 suspension of regular operations, determined the matter was urgent.

It issued a temporary, without prejudice order directing that access exchanges continue at the police station parking lot, with parties remaining in their vehicles, in accordance with the operative court order, while acknowledging the father's concerns about COVID-19 exposure and the general undesirability of police station exchanges.

The court also set a timeline for the motion to be heard on its merits if the respondent wished to file materials.

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 mother sought urgent temporary orders, including a restraining order against the respondent father, no access, permission for service by email, and a police enforcement clause, citing a history of domestic violence and a recent assault while she was holding their infant child.

The father was in custody at the time.

The court, acting as Triage Judge under COVID-19 protocols, found the matter urgent and granted the requested orders on a temporary, without prejudice basis, noting that the father's perspective was not yet known as materials had not been served.

The court set a deadline for the father to file responding materials and outlined next steps for a teleconference if materials were received.

The respondent payor, Corey Sherwood, brought an urgent motion seeking an order to refrain the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) from suspending his driver's license due to significant support arrears.

Sherwood cited unemployment, inability to pay, and the critical need for his license to transport his partner for medical appointments and to exercise parenting time.

The court, acting as Triage Judge under COVID-19 protocols, determined the matter was urgent from Sherwood's perspective.

However, the court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant the refraining order because Sherwood had received a Final Notice, not a First Notice, as required by section 35 of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

Consequently, the motion was dismissed.

The court noted that while this specific motion could not be granted, the underlying motion to change support might be considered urgent if proper evidence were presented.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for the resumption of his regular parenting time after the applicant mother suspended it due to COVID-19 concerns.

The court applied the principles from Ribeiro v. Wright and found the matter to be urgent, as the mother had withheld parenting time in contravention of a final court order.

The court directed a timetable for the exchange of materials and scheduled a teleconference hearing for the motion.

The respondent, Tracey Daunheimer-Bruni, brought a motion to change child support and parenting terms from two final court orders, seeking permission for travel, an increase in child support, enrollment in Our Family Wizard, and application of RESP funds.

The court, operating under COVID-19 protocols for urgent matters, found no urgency in the issues raised, noting the motion had not been issued or served, and the requested changes were nominal or premature.

The court dismissed the motion, advising the moving party to pursue it in the ordinary course once regular court operations resumed.

The respondent mother sought an urgent order for the return of the parties' two children, alleging the applicant father withheld them due to her employment as a healthcare worker during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, determined the matter was urgent, applying principles from *Ribeiro v. Wright* and other developing caselaw regarding parenting arrangements during the pandemic.

The court directed next steps for the motion hearing, including service of materials and a teleconference date, emphasizing the need to maintain parental relationships safely.

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking payment of $85,000 from the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home, citing dire financial circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, applying a strict test for urgency during the pandemic, dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence, such as an up-to-date financial statement, to demonstrate dire financial need or to clarify the impact of outstanding property equalization issues.