Ray Wrubel

The parties, who share equal parenting time and joint decision-making for their four-year-old daughter, could not agree on which public school she should attend.

The applicant mother sought to enroll the child at a school near her home, while the respondent father sought a school near his home.

The court determined that it was in the child's best interests to attend the school near the applicant's home, as it would allow the applicant greater flexibility to secure employment and facilitate the involvement of the child's extended maternal family in before and after-school care.

This endorsement concerns a temporary care hearing under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society, the mother, the maternal grandparents, and the Office of the Children's Lawyer sought to have the child remain in the care of the maternal grandparents.

The father sought to have the child placed in his care.

The court found that the maternal grandparents and mother had "charge of the child" immediately before the CAS intervention.

Applying the laddered approach under s. 94(2) of the CYFSA, and finding no protection concerns with the maternal grandparents, the court ordered the child to remain in their temporary care and custody.

The court also considered the least disruptive placement and the child's best interests, both of which supported placement with the maternal grandparents, despite the father's arguments and historical concerns regarding his conduct.

The Respondent (mother) brought an urgent motion for the return of children to her primary care, alleging the Applicant (father) unilaterally withheld them due to her profession as a healthcare worker during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Applicant (father) filed a cross-motion seeking primary care or, alternatively, a week-on/week-off schedule, citing the mother's increased risk of exposure to COVID-19.

The court found the father's actions unreasonable and that he was using the pandemic to his advantage.

The court ordered a temporary week-on/week-off schedule for the children while schools are closed and the Stay at Home Order is in effect, reverting to the separation agreement's terms thereafter.

The court also mandated mutual notification for COVID-19 symptoms/testing and specific protocols for exchanges, but declined to include a police clause.

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 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.