Vivian Li

The respondent father brought a motion to stay ten prior court orders dating back to 2013, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because he was not properly served in New York under the Hague Service Convention.

The court found that the Hague Service Convention applied, but that the respondent was properly served by FedEx as permitted by Ontario law and the Convention's postal channel provisions.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to grant a stay under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that the respondent failed the RJR-MacDonald test and that staying the orders would cause immense prejudice to the applicant mother, who was owed over $2.5 million in support arrears.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim in-person parenting time with his two-year-old daughter pending a trial on jurisdiction and wrongful removal.

The father sought to exercise parenting time in Turkey, where he was residing, while the respondent mother opposed any travel outside Canada due to fears the father would abduct the child to Dubai.

The court granted the father's request for a four-week parenting time period in Turkey, finding it in the child's best interests to maintain a relationship with her father.

To mitigate the risk of abduction, the court imposed stringent safeguards, including requiring the father to post $200,000 in security, surrender his passports, and consent to a UAE court order granting the mother sole custody.

The appellant father (K.K.) sought a stay pending appeal of a trial judge's order that changed the primary residence of the parties' son (J.K.) to the mother (M.M.) and restricted the father's contact, based on findings of parental alienation.

The mother opposed the stay and sought security for costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal (Motions Judge) applied the three-part test for a stay, finding a serious question regarding the trial judge's exclusion of assessor reports due to regulatory findings against the assessor.

However, the court determined that the irreparable harm and balance of convenience factors did not favour a stay, as it would disrupt the new living arrangements established in the child's best interests.

Both the father's motion for a stay and the mother's motion for security for costs were dismissed.

The applicant, Carmela Maria Capone, moved to quash the appeal of the respondent, Zoran Fotak, from two interlocutory orders made in ongoing family law proceedings.

The motion judge had ordered the respondent to bring a stay motion as a condition for his jurisdictional challenge to be heard, clarifying that no decision on the merits of the jurisdictional challenge had been made.

The Court of Appeal found the orders to be interlocutory and not appealable, as they did not determine any substantive claim or defence.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed.

The respondent brought a motion to terminate her child support obligations for two adult children, arguing they were no longer enrolled in educational programs and thus not "children of the marriage" under the Divorce Act.

The applicant opposed, asserting the children remained dependants and sought to stay the motion due to arrears.

The court denied the stay, finding the respondent's arrears did not warrant it.

The court determined that while a "gap year" is permissible, the children's extended periods out of school, by choice, meant they no longer qualified for support.

Child support for one child was terminated effective December 2019 and for the other effective June 2020, resulting in a significant overpayment to the respondent.

The decision was made without prejudice to future applications if the children re-enroll.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside ten previous court orders, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because he was not properly served under the Hague Service Convention.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking to refuse the respondent an audience because he remained in continuous breach of those orders.

The court held that a litigant cannot ignore court orders and still demand an audience.

The court directed that the respondent must first bring a motion to stay the impugned orders; if successful, he may proceed with his jurisdiction motion, but if unsuccessful, he will be refused an audience until he complies.

The maternal grandparents of the parties' daughter brought a motion to be added as parties to the proceeding and to continue litigation on behalf of the deceased respondent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proceeding was stayed under Rule 11.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure due to the respondent's death and no Order to Continue had been obtained.

Furthermore, even if an Order to Continue had been obtained, the motion to add parties would fail under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules because all issues between the original parties had been settled by consent, and the grandparents' claim for access must be brought in a separate application.

The respondent sought an urgent hearing for his long motion to set aside ten prior court orders, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service under the Hague Service Convention.

He claimed urgency due to his precarious immigration status, inability to work, frozen bank accounts, revoked Canadian passport by FRO, and expiring health insurance amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbated by pre-existing medical conditions.

The applicant opposed the urgency request.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for an urgent hearing, finding his urgent situation largely self-made due to his own delays, non-compliance with previous court orders, and failure to seek appropriate relief or return to Canada when able.

The court also noted the potential issue of attornment to jurisdiction.

The proposed applicant, Mr. Malinowski, sought an urgent motion regarding the necessity of self-isolation before resuming scheduled in-person parenting time, without having formally commenced an application.

The court denied the request for an urgent hearing, noting that the practical urgency had dissipated as the proposed respondent, Ms. Malinowska, was prepared to resume the access schedule on the day of the decision.

The court also highlighted the lack of formal pleadings, which prevented a full understanding of the legal positions and potential urgency of the broader issues, including unresolved property matters.

The parties were encouraged to continue efforts to resolve their differences with the assistance of counsel, referencing the evolving jurisprudence on parenting during the COVID-19 pandemic.