Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-25-00000963-0000 Date: 2025-11-05 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Jesse Edward Garlow, Applicant And: Soraya Lasri, Respondent

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz

Counsel: Amanda Lopez, Counsel for the Applicant Respondent, Self-represented

Heard: November 4, 2025

In Chambers Endorsement

The Distinction Between Emergency and Urgent

[1] In family court, there's a difference between "emergency" and "urgent".

[2] It's easy to blur the distinction, because cases involving children are always "important" (which is yet another, distinct label).

[3] But we've now created some family court forms and procedures which seem to use the terms "emergency" and "urgent" interchangeably. And in the process, we're likely to create a lot of extra work for judges -- and a lot of confusion and frustration for parents and lawyers who are just trying to comply with our ever-changing rules.

[4] This "emergency" motion which came before me in chambers today illustrates the problem.

Background

[5] A bit of background:

[6] On August 29, 2025 the Applicant father – then self-represented – commenced an Application seeking decision-making responsibility and parenting time in relation to five-year-old Noah. The Application included virtually no narrative.

[7] The father's August 27, 2025 Form 35.1 Affidavit was more informative and included the following:

• The Respondent mother has been withholding the child and not allowing regular parenting time.
• She is withholding the child unless he complies with her personal demands for excessive amounts of money.
• She is making unrealistic accusations and threats.
• The mother kept the father from the child for the first three years of his life. Since then he has been a "huge part of his life".
• He seeks regular time with the child including every Wednesday; alternate weekends; school breaks; and special occasions.
• The parents should communicate and consult one-another on major decisions.
• He wants police enforcement of his parenting time.
• He has another child living with that child's mother.
• He is currently charged with six counts of disobeying a court order; six counts of uttering counterfeit money; and six counts of possessing counterfeit money. He provides no explanation of these charges.

[8] On October 7, 2025 the father signed a Notice of Change of Representation, placing his lawyer Amanda Lopez on record.

[9] Today – during the lunch hour – I received in chambers the following documents from the father, all dated November 4, 2025:

• Emergency Motion Request Form
• Notice of Motion
• Affidavit in Support
• Affidavit of Service on the mother. She was served by e-mail at 11:55 a.m., about an hour before I received the documents. Understandably she has not responded.

The Emergency Motion Request Form

[10] This new "Emergency Motion Request Form" is a bit of a confusing document, because it uses the word "Emergency" in the title, but the three possible requests use the word "Urgent":

• "Urgent Without Notice Motion"
• "Urgent before Case Conference Motion"
• "Urgent Short Notice after Case Conference Motion"

[11] The first option – "Urgent Without Notice Motion" – appears to deal with what we would typically refer to as emergency motions – matters that require immediate attention, quite often on the same day (sometimes within hours). This is dealt with in Rule 14(12) of the Family Law Rules ("the Rules") which states:

Motion without notice

(12) A motion may be made without notice if,

(a) the nature or circumstances of the motion make notice unnecessary or not reasonably possible;

(b) there is an immediate danger of a child's removal from Ontario, and the delay involved in serving a notice of motion would probably have serious consequences;

(c) there is an immediate danger to the health or safety of a child or of the party making the motion, and the delay involved in serving a notice of motion would probably have serious consequences; or

(d) service of a notice of motion would probably have serious consequences. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 14.

Filing for motion without notice

(13) The documents for use on a motion without notice shall be filed on or before the motion date, unless the court orders otherwise. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 14.

Order made on motion without notice

(14) An order made on motion without notice (Form 14D) shall require the matter to come back to the court and, if possible, to the same judge, within 14 days or on a date chosen by the court. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 14.

Service of order made without notice

(15) An order made on motion without notice shall be served immediately on all parties affected, together with all documents used on the motion, unless the court orders otherwise. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 14.

The Father's Motion

[12] But that's not the option the father checked off. He selected the second option: "Urgent before Case Conference Motion" in support of which he stated:

• The soonest available case conference date is March 2026.
• The mother has not yet filed her Answer, despite indicating at the October 21, 2025 First Appearance that she would do so.
• A case conference cannot be scheduled until her Answer has been filed.
• He has attempted settlement discussions to try to resolve "pressing issues" without success. (Notably, he refers to them as "pressing" rather than "emergency" or even "urgent".)
• He wants a judge to review his materials because prior to retaining counsel in October 2025 he hadn't seen his child for approximately two months. Since then he's only had limited parenting time from October 15, 2025 to October 17, 2025. The mother has advised she's suspending parenting time unless and until there is a court order in place.

[13] The father's November 4, 2025 affidavit in support of his motion included some but not all of the information included in his Application and 35.1 Affidavit. This affidavit – the only one I was supposed to receive in chambers -- basically stated:

• The parties were in an unmarried relationship from 2017 to 2019.
• They have one child born on November 5, 2020 – after they separated.
• He didn't meet the child until February 29, 2023.
• By May 2024 he was having consistent parenting time alternate weekends and each Wednesday.
• They reconciled between September 2024 and July 2025 – although they maintained separate residences during this period.
• He has been actively involved in the child's life and they are closely bonded.
• After July 2025 the mother started using Noah as "leverage", sometimes denying parenting time unless he complied with her demands.
• He was denied parenting time for two months.
• After his lawyer became involved the mother allowed the father to have parenting time from October 15 to October 17. But she became angry that he had dropped the child off at school without prior agreement, and she has been denying parenting time ever since.
• She advised his lawyer in writing that "due to safety concerns for Noah and myself I will require court orders". He doesn't specify whether he has any understanding of what those "safety concerns" might be.
• He attached an email in which the mother proposed mediation. It is unclear whether he agrees.

Rule 14(4) and Pre-Case Conference Motions

[14] Prior to the implementation of the new "Emergency Motion Request Form" a parent in the father's situation would have served the mother with a motion returnable on a regular motions list. That motion might have included a request for an abridgement of time for service. In any event, that motion would likely have included a threshold request to be permitted to proceed prior to a case conference. This issue is addressed in Rule 14(4) which states:

No motion before case conference on substantive issues completed

(4) No notice of motion or supporting evidence may be served and no motion may be heard before a conference dealing with the substantive issues in the case has been completed.

Urgency, hardship etc.

(4.2) Subrule (4) does not apply if the court is of the opinion that there is a situation of urgency or hardship or that a case conference is not required for some other reason in the interest of justice.

[15] There's a lot of case law about Rule 14(4).

[16] The purpose of Rule 14 is to encourage litigants to attend a case conference before proceeding with a motion, to lessen the number of interim motions that occur in family law matters. Generally speaking, motions are not to be brought before case conferences except in exceptional circumstances. Spiegel v. Zigelstein; Rosen v. Rosen, [2005] O.J. No. 62 (SCJ); Alves v. Galloway, 2023 ONSC 7209 (SCJ).

[17] Courts have generally held that situations of urgency or hardship contemplate issues such as abduction, threats of harm, or dire financial circumstances. Rosen v. Rosen; Gould v. Jackman 2021 ONSC 4529 (SCJ).

[18] In Rosen v. Rosen, the court described an urgent motion as follows:

"an urgent motion contemplates issues such as abduction, threat of harm, dire financial circumstances. Counsel must first make an inquiry to see if an early case conference date can be obtained. If there is a long delay, that could make the issue critical. Counsel should also first try to obtain a short-term agreement."

[19] In Thomas v. Wohleber, 2020 ONSC 1965 (SCJ) Justice Kurz set out the test for a finding of urgency:

1. The concern must be immediate; that is one that cannot await resolution at a later date;

2. The concern must be serious in the sense that it significantly affects the health or safety or economic well-being of parties and/or their children;

3. The concern must be a definite and material rather than a speculative one. It must relate to something tangible (a spouse or child's health, welfare, or dire financial circumstances) rather than theoretical;

4. It must be one that has been clearly particularized in evidence and examples that describes the manner in which the concern reaches the level of urgency.

The Waning of Urgency

[20] The "urgency" of a parenting issue may wane, the longer a party waits to address what they characterize as an inappropriate situation.

• A sudden and recent decrease or denial in parenting time will generally require immediate rectification in the best interests of the child. Hurd v. Hurd (2006). Clement v. Clement, 2010 ONSC 1113 (SCJ); Endicott v. Endicott, 2015 ONSC 3180 (SCJ). The court must guard against unilateral and perhaps strategic behaviour by a parent inappropriately disrupting or creating a status quo pending a case conference. Baig v. Dean 2019 ONSC 5653 (SCJ); Mask v Fuhrmann, 2022 ONSC 5536 (SCJ)

• But if a parent waits many weeks or even months to establish or reinstate involvement in a child's life, the justification for a pre-case conference motion will rapidly diminish. Reitzel v. Reitzel, 2020 ONSC 1977 (SCJ).

[21] Where the nature or scheduling of the issue was (or should have been) apparent well in advance, parties cannot wait until the last minute and then rely on their inattentiveness to characterize the matter as suddenly "urgent". Chase v. Chase 2020 ONSC 5083 (SCJ)

The Requirement for Both Sides of the Story

[22] Clearly, the issue of whether a motion should be allowed to proceed prior to a case conference is a formal judicial determination, based upon consideration of the law as applied to the specific facts of each case. And as should be equally self-evident, except in emergency situations justifying ex parte relief, factual and legal determinations by a judge should be carefully determined after receiving evidence and submissions from both parties.

[23] Both sides of the story. A concept seemingly ignored in this new "Emergency Motion Request Form", which invites a judge to make a critical determination about fundamentally important family court procedures, based solely on one side of the story. In this case, the father's side.

Inadequate Service

[24] Admittedly, the father didn't technically try to proceed on an ex parte basis. His lawyer served the mother by email about one hour prior to my receiving the documents in chambers. But what good is that kind of service?

• There is no indication the mother received any forewarning about this motion.
• There is no reason to presume that she actually saw the documents the moment they were emailed.
• His materials include reference to the fact that she is employed. She may not have had access to her email if she was working.
• Even if she instantly read the documents at 11:55 a.m. when they were emailed, what possible opportunity would she have had to respond in any meaningful fashion by the lunch hour, when the motion documents came to me in chambers?
• This type of service is actually no service. Effectively, this was presented as an ex parte matter.
• Even if more notice had been given, the Notice of Motion simply referred to the court hearing a motion on "A date determined by the court". This provides no guidance to a Respondent as to the appropriate method or timelines for a response.

The Delay in Case Conference Dates

[25] The father says he brought this motion because he has been advised that a case conference cannot be arranged prior to March 2026.

• There is no doubt that our family court system is overburdened and wait times for future dates are often agonizingly long.
• Without question a lengthy delay in obtaining a case conference date may be an important consideration in a judicial analysis of Rule 14(4.2), particularly in parenting cases.
• But the availability of case conference dates is only one factor. We haven't reached the stage where Rule 14(4) has been repealed, simply because we have a busy court system.
• The question of dispensing with a case conference on some or all issues still requires a judicial determination based on the specific facts of each case, after consideration of evidence from both parties.

Lack of Without Prejudice Mechanism

[26] The new "Emergency Motion Request Form" doesn't contemplate a without prejudice order. Once a case conference is dispensed with, there is no mechanism to re-visit the issue – even if the one-sided evidence the judge relied on turns out to be completely erroneous.

Incomplete Disclosure

[27] In today's case, the father wants me to make a very important determination based only on his side of the story. But after I did a quick check of the whole court file, I discovered that in this "emergency" motion, he hadn't told me the whole of the story.

• In the materials he filed in chambers, he didn't mention anything about having 18 criminal charges outstanding against him. I only discovered the criminal involvement when I searched the court file. Twelve of those charges appear to relate to counterfeit money (which wouldn't likely relate to parenting, but it might say something about veracity). I have no idea what the six "disobey court order" charges relate to, but judges generally take "disobeying orders" quite seriously. It might be a good idea to find out more about this, before we make an order affecting a young child's life.

• The father says the mother has made "unrealistic accusations", but he provides no particulars or specific denial. He also says the mother has expressed "safety concerns" about the child and herself, but again he gives no explanation. His own materials keep alluding to the fact that the mother has made serious complaints about him. But our one-sided "Emergency Motion Request Form" deprives a responding party from alerting the court to potentially serious allegations.

• And while the father's motion makes selective reference to the mother having promised to file an Answer at an October 21, 2025 First Appearance, again he doesn't tell the whole story. My review of First Appearance endorsement confirms that the mother was present, the father wasn't, and the father's lawyer had an agent present. The endorsement included: "The Respondent needs to file her Answer and she indicated she is in the process of doing so. On consent, once the Answer has been filed, a case conference date will be scheduled through the Trial Coordinator's office." (emphasis added) How is it fair that the parties specifically agreed that a case conference would be scheduled after she filed an answer – and two weeks later the father brought a motion behind her back, seeking to dispense with a case conference?

Critique of the New Form and Procedure

[28] While I disapprove of the father's lack of candor, I don't fault the father's lawyer for using the new "Emergency Motion Request Form" because that's what parties have been instructed to do.

[29] But this case is a clear example of how this new form and procedure is likely to make things worse, not better.

• For lawyers and parties, it means extra paperwork and expense.
• For judges, we're used to dropping everything when a true emergency comes in. But now our daily caseload will be interrupted by more "emergencies" – except many of them won't really be emergencies. More time. More stress, answering false alarms.

The Previous Protocol

[30] As stated, under the previous protocol, a party seeking pre-case conference relief would bring a motion returnable on a specific date, and the responding party would have an opportunity to provide relevant evidence on the issue of whether the court should dispense with a case conference pursuant to its discretion under Rule 14(4.2).

• Under that system, a lot of "urgent" issues – like reinstating parenting time – were often resolved on the very first return date.
• Judges were often able to secure early case conference dates, when truly warranted – even if it meant juggling their own schedule.

The New System's Flaws

[31] This new system introduces a mandatory intermediate step.

• The Applicant explains why they want pre-case conference relief.
• The Respondent has no meaningful knowledge that this discussion is taking place. Absolutely no opportunity to participate in a judicial determination which affects them.
• There is no real opportunity for balanced consideration of any of the case law relating to Rule 14(4).
• If the court dispenses with a case conference based on only one side of the story, there's a danger that subsequent information from the Respondent will demonstrate that the judicial analysis was based on incomplete information. Theoretically, a motion could be brought to try to set aside the order pursuant to Rule 25(19). But that's just more needless work for everyone.
• In many cases, the court will want to hear the Respondent's side before making a judicial determination under Rule 14(4.2). Which takes us right back to where we were before we introduced this new form: Serve a motion returnable in court. Have both parties present when the judge decides whether to dispense with the case conference.

The Solution

[32] This shouldn't be so complicated.

• There's a difference between "emergency" and "urgent".
• If it's truly an emergency, proceed ex parte if you have to, pursuant to Rule 14(12).
• If it's urgent but it can wait a few days (which most things can), serve a motion returnable in court on a specific date and time; characterize it as "urgent" if necessary; seek an abridgement of time if necessary; and specify that you're seeking pre-case conference relief. A judge will then be able to decide, after hearing both sides.

Disposition

[33] The father's motion is dismissed. He should serve the mother with a regular motion (in Hamilton, returnable on a Wednesday at 10 a.m. as a placeholder date).

In the meantime, if the father hasn't responded to the mother's suggestion of mediation, he might consider that as well.

Justice Alex Pazaratz

Date: November 5, 2025