Parineeta Chahal

Paternal grandparents sought leave to bring an urgent motion for joint custody and primary care of two children (ages 5 and 3).

The children's father had wrongfully removed them to Turkey in breach of a 2017 custody order.

The mother obtained a Hague Convention order for their return in May 2019 and subsequently obtained temporary custody.

The court dismissed the grandparents' request for an urgent motion, finding no evidence of abduction or threat of harm by the mother, no immediate concern that could not await resolution, and noting the grandparents' delay in seeking court intervention.

Instead, the court ordered a priority case conference to be held by teleconference.

The respondent father brought a motion for leave to proceed with an urgent motion for access to his newborn son.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for leave to proceed with an urgent motion for child support, a compliance order regarding criminal recognizance, and a restraining order preventing contact.

The court considered whether the motions met the test for urgency and determined that while there were serious issues, they did not meet the threshold for urgent motion relief at that time.

The court found that the issues could be appropriately addressed through an urgent case conference scheduled for April 27, 2020, which could proceed remotely.

The applicant sought an uncontested annulment of his marriage to the respondent on the ground of non-consummation.

The parties married but the respondent refused to engage in physical intimacy due to severe anxiety, and she declined to seek medical or psychological treatment.

The court reviewed the legal test for non-consummation, which requires an incapacity or inability rather than mere refusal.

Adopting previous appellate reasoning, the court inferred that the respondent's inability to consummate arose from a psychological disability and granted the annulment.

The Applicant wife sought to vary a final divorce order, terminate child support obligations, and set arrears to zero, while the Respondent husband sought various orders including equalization of net family property and repayment of alleged overpaid support.

The court found exceptional circumstances to make final and temporary orders at a case conference, eliminating the Applicant's child support arrears and terminating her support obligation.

The Respondent's claims, including those seeking to vary a separation agreement and freeze property, were deemed non-viable.

The court ordered both parties to retain counsel for future proceedings to ensure claims have a legal basis and to prevent the misuse of judicial resources.