2 total
The court found both parents' motions regarding COVID-19 parenting time urgent and directed a case conference.
The applicant father sought an urgent motion for resumption of parenting time, alleging the respondent mother breached a prior order by withholding their child due to COVID-19 concerns.
The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for an urgent order to suspend access, citing the child's vulnerability to the virus.
The court found both motions urgent, applying the test from Thomas v. Wohleber.
While acknowledging the mother's past gatekeeping behavior and finding her in contempt previously, the court emphasized the importance of children maintaining contact with both parents during the pandemic.
The court did not grant immediate police enforcement or suspension of access but ordered a teleconference Case Conference with the Ontario Children's Lawyer (OCL) to facilitate resolution and strengthen the father-daughter relationship.
The court set aside a family law order that was prematurely granted before the response period expired.
The respondent brought a motion to set aside an order granted on an unopposed 14B motion, arguing that the court granted the order prematurely, before the expiry of the response period under the Family Law Rules.
The court found that the original order could not stand due to procedural irregularity.
Alternatively, applying the three-part test for setting aside a default judgment, the court found the respondent moved promptly, had a plausible explanation for default, and an arguable case on the merits regarding unresolved parenting issues and the binding nature of the minutes of settlement.
The original order was set aside, and a case conference was ordered.
