Sherman Law LLP is pleased to share that our partner, Aubrey Sherman recently presented at "Crossing the Cultural Divide: Practical Ways Lawyers and Mediators can Better Work Together for the Benefit of the Public" in association with Ontario's Family Law Limited Scope Services Project, Ontario Association for Family Mediation and Law Pro.
The recording from the presentation is currently being reviewed by Law Pro as part of the Practice Pro materials and for continuing education courses.
Sherman Law LLP congratulates Aubrey and all of the presenters from this valuable project and presentation.
To view the presentation, please click here.
I previously wrote in a blog about the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 that a parent's ability to make retroactive claims for child support is based on a child's best interests and a parent's obligation to provide timely financial disclosure, whereby Canada's highest court held that parents must pay child support based on their income. If a parent does not do so, then the court can correct the issue by way of an order that reaches back in time and requires a parent to pay what ought to have been paid previously. However, the court was not done with a review of the issue of retroactive child support.
Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada in Colucci v. Colucci 2021 SCC 24 was once again asked to review the issue of retroactive child support. This time in a different manner and through an inverted lens. This case provided the court with an opportunity to establish a framework for the courts to follow when a parent tries to retroactively decrease child support to reflect a past reduction in income under section 17 of the Divorce Act.
The father sought to reduce or cancel child support arrears of approximately $170,000. In a unanimous decision of the court, Madam Justice Sheilah L. Martin declined to give the father the relief that he sought. The message from the court was clear that financial disclosure must be provided to ensure that child support is paid in accordance with a parent's fluctuating income. If income changes, a change in the amount of support payable must be sought and advanced in a timely manner. Parents cannot expect a court to fix consequences that may arise from a parent's failure to do so.
The court noted that family law matters are diverse and complex and that courts need wide discretion to come to a fair result. Courts must balance a child's need for regular and appropriate support with the need for flexibility when a parent's ability to pay is affected by changes in income over time.
The framework recognizes two long-established principles of Canadian child support law: First, children have a right to a fair standard of support. That is a core objective of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. Secondly, parents are obliged to financially support their children starting at birth and continuing after separation. The court also explained that since the Guidelines came into effect, the payor parent is under a free-standing legal obligation that is independent of any court order -- to pay child support in line with their income.
The parties divorced in 1996 following a 13 year marriage. At that time, the mother and father agreed that their two daughters, ages 6 and 8, would live with the mother, who was awarded sole custody. The father was required to pay child support of $155 per week. Soon after the divorce, the father left Canada without telling anyone of his whereabouts. For 14 years from 1998 to 2012, the father did not make any voluntary child support payments to the mother, did not disclose his income, and moved to two different countries without notifying the mother. The father's child support obligations ended in 2012, at which time the children had completed their education and were employed.
In 2016, the father came out of hiding, when he returned to Canada. The father was facing enforcement action by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), including personal garnishment of his wages. By that time, the father owed child support arrears and interest of approximately $170,000. The father commenced court proceedings to retroactively reduce or cancel his child support obligation to bring it in line with his declared income during those years that were related to the accumulated arrears, and to establish it based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines, which came into effect in 1997. The father also asked the court to consider his current and future inability to pay the arrears in determining if the arrears should be reduced or cancelled. The father did not take steps to adjust his child support obligation beyond a request that his lawyer made on his behalf in 1998, which was not agreed to by the mother nor was it pursued by the father before the court.
The father revealed in earlier court proceedings that he had relocated to the United States in 2000, where he resided until 2005, earning about $25,000 per year. The father then moved to Italy to care for his ailing mother who passed away in 2008. Prior to his mother's death, the father earned nominal income. After the mother's death, the father lived off the inheritance that he received from the mother's estate.
The father did not provide any financial disclosure such as income tax returns or notices of assessment even though he asked the court to adjust his support arrears to reflect his historic income. At trial, the father was successful in reducing his support arrears to $41,642. The mother appealed and the Court of Appeal restored the full amount of child support arrears. The father appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which brings us back to our story.
In the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the court refused to reduce the arrears and dismissed the appeal. Madam Justice Martin's decision and review of the father's claim discusses the importance of proper and timely financial disclosure in child support cases, wherein she states, "Disclosure is the linchpin on which fair child support depends and the relevant legal tests must encourage the timely provision of necessary information." Disclosure is a necessity and it is based on the premise underlying the Child Support Guidelines that provides that a child support obligation should fluctuate with the payor parent's income.
The court assessed whether a retroactive reduction in child support was appropriate, especially in light of the father's failure to provide timely and adequate financial disclosure. The court held that a recipient of child support is entitled to expect that the existing order will be complied with unless they are in receipt of reasonable proof that a relevant change in the payor's circumstances has occurred. Madam Justice Martin wrote, "Again, the payor holds the relevant information and knows when there has been a decrease in income. It is in the payor's own best interest to use this knowledge to notify the recipient of the change in circumstances and take steps to formally vary a child support order." The court held that when full, frank and regular disclosure occurs, the issue of long-term arrears should be a rarity. Madam Justice Martin held that it would be "illogical, unfair and contrary to the child's best interests to make the recipient solely responsible for policing the payor's ongoing compliance with their support obligation."
The court held that the father took little steps to reduce his child support obligations for almost 18 years. The father claimed his was automatically entitled to a retroactive decrease, even though he never notified the mother about his decreased income at that time. The court noted that a parent who has established a past decrease in income is not automatically entitled to a retroactive decrease of support to the date of the decrease. It emphasized that it is up to the court to make a discretionary decision based on its analysis of the specific circumstances of the given case.
The father's choice to leave Canada, not disclose his whereabouts, and to make very few child support payments was not looked at favourably. The father showed "no willingness to support the children, who suffered hardship as a result of his failure to fulfill his obligations". The father’s conduct showed bad faith and he attempted to evade the enforcement of a court order. Madam Justice Martin wrote that granting a retroactive reduction in child support would give tacit approval to the improper conduct of the father, which was not in the best interests of the children.
The court concluded that the father had not proved that he could not pay now or in the future, even with a flexible payment plan. The Court wrote that the cancellation of child support debt would only happen in exceptional cases and as a last resort. As a result, the father was required to pay the mother the $170,000 of child support owed.
The court stressed the child support system depends on adequate, accurate and timely financial disclosure. Madam Justice Martin wrote, “frank disclosure of income information by the payor lies at the foundation of the child support regime”.
If you are a parent dealing with a child support issue, you must provide timely financial disclosure to the other parent to ensure that child support is being paid based on a parent's fluctuating income. If a payor's income changes, as it does for many parents, that parent must seek a change in the amount being paid in a timely manner. The court has made it clear that parents cannot expect that the court will help to fix the consequences that may arise from a failure of a parent to advance the issue in an expeditious manner.
If you are dealing with a complication arising from a situation of retroactive child support as it applies to your family law and parenting matter, we invite you to contact an experienced lawyer at our firm for more information about how we may be of assistance.
Aubrey Sherman is the managing partner at Sherman Law LLP in Kitchener, Ontario. His practice focuses on family law, estate planning, and estate administration. The team at Sherman Law LLP in Waterloo Region has over 40 years of experience providing clients with creative and innovative solutions. If you wish to discuss your family law or estate planning matter in further detail, please contact our office to arrange for a consultation. We can be reached by phone at 519-884-0034 or by email.
Family law touches the lives of more Canadians than any other areas of law. Despite this fact, the family court system is often out-of-touch with the realities for many families whose lives significantly change as the result of separation and divorce. Statistics show that over two million children are living in divorced or separated families. In family law, a child's best interests is the top priority when making parenting decisions. Effective March 1, 2021, there will be significant changes to the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd. Supp.) being the federal legislation that governs spouses being two persons who are married to each other upon separation and divorce. The court will now recognize that each child is different and each family is unique. There is no longer a one-size-fits-all approach to parenting. This blog will provide an overview of some of the most significant changes to the Divorce Act.
The updated Divorce Act encourages spouses, parents, and extended family to look beyond the court system to resolve disputes about child support, spousal support, and parenting issues that often arise after separation. Resolving disputes outside of court is frequently referred to as alternative dispute resolution and can include a combination of approaches to resolve conflict and disputes including negotiation, collaborative family law, mediation, and arbitration. Lawyers will now be required to inform and encourage clients to resolve matters outside of court unless the circumstances make it clear that it would be inappropriate, such as where family violence exists or there is unequal bargaining power.
There is a shift in language to a more child-focused approach to describe parenting arrangements. The language of "custody" and "access" have been replaced with language such as "decision-making responsibility" for a child and "parenting time". The term "contact order" will also be introduced to describe the contact time a third-party who is not a spouse wishes to see a child such as extended family including a grandparent. These changes make the law more child-focused, with a greater emphasis on the actual tasks of parenting. The new approach uses "parenting orders" to replace orders for custody and access under the Divorce Act.
Old Divorce Act Parenting Terms Before March 1, 2021 |
Updated Divorce Act Parenting Terms After March 1, 2021 |
| Custody | Decision-making and parenting time |
| Access (spouse) | Parenting time |
| Access (non-spouse such as grandparent) | Contact order |
A parenting order sets out each parent's "decision-making responsibilities", which refers to making important decisions on behalf of a child, and "parenting time." Both parents could have parenting time, depending on each child's best interests. The new wording is neutral and emphasizes that both parents will be caring for their child when the child is with each parent. These concepts remove the notion that there is one primary caregiver for children, and the resulting frequent request to be classified as a "primary caregiver" in a court order or separation agreement. This neutral wording also reinforces the idea that there are no "winners" or "losers" in decisions about parenting arrangements in an adversarial court context.
Court orders that were issued and obtained prior to March 1, 2021 will not have to be changed to reflect the new language. After March 1, 2021, any party seeking to obtain or change a court order will need to use this new language. However, many family law lawyers and judges have previously used this language for quite some time in separation agreements, court orders, and in out-of-court settlements including mediation and collaborative family law.
Parents will have several express and expanded duties in the Divorce Act, which include:
The best interests of the child will now be the only consideration for the court when making a parenting order. When considering factors, the court's primary consideration must be the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being, as outlined at s. 16(2) of the Divorce Act.
A review and determination of the best interests of a child will now include:
The principle that wherever possible there should be "maximum contact" between a child and each parent that is consistent with the child's best interests has now been replaced with a new section being s. 16(6) of the Divorce Act. In allocating parenting time, the court shall now give priority to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse/parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.
The Divorce Act now includes a new section dealing with family violence. Courts will have to take family violence into account. Before making parenting, contact, or support orders, courts will need to consider any other proceedings or orders involving any of the parties. This section is very important because it makes it clear that family violence does not have to be a criminal offence or to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. It also states that the family violence list is not exhaustive and includes exposure to children — either as victims or witnesses.
Section 2(1) of the Divorce Act defines family violence as:
any conduct, whether or not the conduct constitutes a criminal offence, by a family member towards another family member, that is violent or threatening or that constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour or that causes that other family member to fear for their own safety or for that of another person — and in the case of a child, the direct or indirect exposure to such conduct — and includes:
(a) physical abuse, including forced confinement but excluding the use of reasonable force to protect themselves or another person;
(b) sexual abuse;
(c) threats to kill or cause bodily harm to any person;
(d) harassment, including stalking;
(e) the failure to provide the necessaries of life;
(f) psychological abuse;
(g) financial abuse;
(h) threats to kill or harm an animal or damage property; and
(i) the killing or harming of an animal or the damaging of property.
Section 16.1(8) of the Divorce Act addresses the issue of supervision in the context of parenting orders where the transfer of a child between parents or a third-party must be supervised and/or that parenting time must be supervised.
There will now be a new framework to review changes in residence and relocation which includes written notice of changes to residence and relocations between the spouses/parents. There is now an expanded view of the best interests of the child criteria for the court to consider, and establishes clear directions and burdens of proof in certain situations. There are exceptions to this rule of notice requirements in situations where there is a risk of family violence and a spouse/parent obtains a court order that notice of a change to a child's residence is waived or modified to provide limited information. In these circumstances, a party can bring an application to the court without the other spouse's knowledge.
"Relocation" has been added as a new term and now refers to a change in residence of the child or person who has parenting time or decision-making responsibility that is likely to have a significant impact on the child's relationship with a person who has:
Each party will now have a responsibility to inform the others that may be affected concerning the relocation of a parent or child at least 60 days before to the proposed move, as stated at Section 16.9(1) of the Divorce Act. Once a notice of relocation is provided to the affected individuals, those parties will have 30 days to object, which objection shall include:
(a) A written statement that the person objects to the proposed relocation;
(b) The reasons for the objection;
(c) The views of the person for the proposal for the exercise of parenting time, decision-making responsibility or contact, as the case may be, that is set out in the notice referred to in subsection 16.9(1); and
(d) Any other information prescribed by the regulations.
If no objection is received within the 30 days of the party giving notice of the relocation the party and the child may relocate provided that there is no existing court order that prohibits the relocation. The burden of proof will be on the party seeking to relocate with the child in circumstances where the child is living with both parents. In circumstances, where the party seeking to relocate has the child in their care the majority of the time, the burden of proof will be on the party objecting to the relocation to prove that the relocation would not be in the best interests of the child.
Courts will now be required to order parenting time to each parent based on the child's best interests. The best interests criteria will help the court to tailor parenting arrangements for each child's specific situation. The best interests of the child test has been expanded in the context of the relocation such that a court in reviewing the issue will now have to consider the following:
Studies show that spouses and children are at a much greater risk of living in poverty after a separation and divorce if they do not receive the financial support that they are owed. The updated legislation includes measures to reduce poverty, including:
The focus on conflict and dispute resolution options such as mediation and collaborative law is a powerful first step in moving the Canadian family court system in the right direction towards a wholistic approach for dispute resolution as part of the comprehensive law movement. The new legislation attempts to bring Canada closer to becoming a party to two very important international family law conventions including the 1996 Hague Convention for the Protection of Children and the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention. While a long-term goal, Canada is not yet at the point of being a party to the Convention, but these new changes bring us one step closer to achieving this important goal. Being a party to the Conventions would make it easier to resolve many family law inter-jurisdictional issues when one or more of the parties resides in another country.
A number of new measures in the Divorce Act will surely help to streamline administrative procedures and processes to make the family court system more accessible and affordable. Requirements for lawyers to inform and encourage clients to make effective use of alternative dispute resolution processes to resolve their family law disputes will help to clear the large volume of cases and related wait time to have cases heard in a manner and approach that is less costly and emotionally draining to the parties involved. Studies show that there is greater satisfaction with the outcome of a dispute when parties work together to resolve their dispute out-of-court in an less adversarial manner.
If you believe that you could benefit from assistance in family law or wish to discuss the changes in the Divorce Act in further detail, we invite you to contact an experienced lawyer at our firm for more information about how we may be of assistance.
Aubrey Sherman is the managing partner at Sherman Law LLP in Kitchener, Ontario. His practice focuses on family law, estate planning, and estate administration. The team at Sherman Law LLP in Waterloo Region has over 40 years of experience providing clients with creative and innovative solutions. If you wish to discuss your family law or estate planning matter in further detail, please contact our office to arrange for a consultation. We can be reached by phone at 519-884-0034 or by email.
As a collaborative family law practitioner, I am often asked by clients why a collaborative separation and divorce is the best choice for them in contrast to the traditional adversarial approach to litigation and court proceedings that often results in higher costs and increased conflict.
Maintain control: You and your spouse are the decision-makers in the process, not the family law lawyers and the court.
If you believe that you could benefit from assistance in Collaborative Family Law, we invite you to contact an experienced lawyer at our firm for more information about how we may be of assistance.
Aubrey Sherman is the managing partner at Sherman Law LLP in Kitchener, Ontario. His practice focuses on family law, estate planning, and estate administration. The team at Sherman Law LLP in Waterloo Region has over 40 years of experience providing clients with creative and innovative solutions. If you wish to discuss your family law or estate planning matter in further detail, please contact our office to arrange for a consultation. We can be reached by phone at 519-884-0034 or by email.
People often avoid contemplating their own mortality and neglect to plan for the distribution of their assets when they die. Many put off to tomorrow planning that should be done today. Unfortunately, everyone will eventually pass away and often with considerable assets. In light of how our daily lives have changed as a result of COVID-19, we are receiving numerous requests from clients to review or draft comprehensive estate plans. This blog will discuss the top 5 reasons why you should consider having a Will prepared or updated.
It can often cost more to administer an estate where there was no Will than an estate with a Will and proper estate plan. Therefore, estate planning is an important aspect of organizing your personal affairs that should not be ignored. Our team of highly skilled Kitchener estate planning lawyers recognizes that estate planning can be a very personal matter that requires unique personal attention to ensure that we implement a comprehensive estate plan that respects all of your wishes, while minimizing the potential for family disputes.
Estate planning is the process of arranging your affairs to ensure that at your death your savings and assets will pass on to your beneficiaries in accordance with your wishes and without unnecessary tax consequences. This process can involve the drafting of Wills, Trusts, Powers of Attorney, and general estate management. Whether you are just starting out in your career and require a basic Will and Powers of Attorney or you have considerable assets and require a more detailed estate plan, our Kitchener estate planning lawyers are ready to assist you in meeting your goals and protecting your legacy. We offer reasonable flat rate packages for many of our estate planning services and discounted rates for spouses who wish to create similar estate plans.
If you believe that you could benefit from assistance in Estate Planning, we invite you to contact an experienced lawyer at our firm for more information about how we may be of assistance.
Aubrey Sherman is the managing partner at Sherman Law LLP in Kitchener, Ontario. His practice focuses on family law, estate planning, and estate administration. The team at Sherman Law LLP in Waterloo Region has over 40 years of experience providing clients with creative and innovative solutions. If you wish to discuss your family law or estate planning matter in further detail, please contact our office to arrange for a consultation. We can be reached by phone at 519-884-0034 or by email.
Many parents have recently found themselves in disagreement over whether or not in-person learning at school is safe for their children with the rise of COVID-19 cases across much of the country. Parents may find themselves in disagreement, and naturally there is often divided opinion between parents, especially for those who are separated and divorced and do not see to eye-to-eye on issues of parenting.
In a recent case of Zinati v. Spence 2020 ONSC 5231, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered at motion the issue of whether it is safe for a child to attend school in-person.
The mother and father of the child, who was 6 years old and was to start Grade 1 this year, exercised de facto joint decision making. Like many children, the child's last year of school was interrupted by the COVID-19 shutdown. The child's school resumed in-person learning in September 2020. However, the father did not wish the child to attend in-person schooling, while the mother supported that the child return to in-person learning.
The issue before the court was to determine if it was in the child's best interest to return to in-person learning at her school, or to continue with online learning.
To make matters even more complicated, the child's stepmother is a front-line health care worker who therefore may be of exposed risk of getting COVID-19. Both homes were also shared by a grandparent. However, the court did not consider the grandparents to be at increased risk other than risks associated with age. The court was satisfied that the stepmother was following health guidelines established by her profession. The child had no health issues of her own that would put her at an increased risk if she were to contract the virus.
There have been a number of decisions recently released relating to the question of safety for students returning to school during COVID-19. In Chase v. Chase 2020 ONSC 5083, Justice Himel of the court heard an urgent motion in writing where the parents could not agree about whether or not their child should attend school in-person or online. In Chase v. Chase, the court referenced two cases from Quebec, which is unusual because Quebec decisions are rarely binding on Ontario courts. In one of the Quebec cases, a return to school order did not occur because a family member was at high risk of contracting the virus because of an autoimmune disorder. In the other case, the court found that the government and provincial health authorities were in the best position to determine if a return to school decision was safe.
In our case at hand, the court examined a child-focused approach to the school attendance issue and quoted the earlier Ontario decision in Chase v. Chase, which stated at paragraph 42:
"The Ontario government is in a better position than the courts to assess and address school attendance risks. The decision to re-open the schools was made with the benefit of medical expert advisers and in consultation with Ontario school boards. The teachers’ unions and others have provided their input as well as their concerns. While the parties spent considerable time addressing a recently released report by the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, I decline to consider same. There are experts on all sides of the Covid-19 debate, however, the decision to re-open schools and the steps being taken to protect children and staff fall within the purview of the Ontario government."
Justice Akbarali held that while no child is entirely free of the health risks associated with COVID-19 while attending school, the risks have not found be severe enough to warrant keeping children who are not at a higher risk of health complications from attending at in-person learning. The court found that there were not sufficient grounds to warrant requiring the child to attend school virtually or to delay the child's return to in-person learning.
The court also held that there would be no order as to costs because the issue "novel, important, and an all-or-nothing issue." The court found that since neither party acted in bad faith or took unreasonable positions that there was to be no costs of the motion.
If you are dealing with a complication arising from a situation of schooling for a child during COVID-19 as it applies to your family law and parenting matter, we invite you to contact an experienced lawyer at our firm for more information about how we may be of assistance.
Aubrey Sherman is the managing partner at Sherman Law LLP in Kitchener, Ontario. His practice focuses on family law, estate planning, and estate administration. The team at Sherman Law LLP in Waterloo Region has over 40 years of experience providing clients with creative and innovative solutions. If you wish to discuss your family law or estate planning matter in further detail, please contact our office to arrange for a consultation. We can be reached by phone at 519-884-0034 or by email.
The Supreme Court of Canada in Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 recently released a decision clarifying its position on awarding a variance in retroactive child support to children who are not adults.
Retroactive child support is support that a parent is ordered to pay in situations when they should have been paying more child support than they had been previously under the Child Support Guidelines. Sometimes, the avoidance of the party paying support may not be discovered until the child is an adult. This decision now gives clarity in this important area of family law as to the difference between what should have been paid in child support and what amounts of retroactive child support can be recovered when the child is an adult.
The facts of this case revolved around two parents, referred in the decisions as "M" (the mother) and "G" (the father). The parents had a child referred to as "A", who was born in 1991. M and G separated in 1994. Upon separation, A lived with his mother and his father agreed to pay child support. These terms were formalized in an Order on Consent in 2001.
The father's child support obligations came to end in 2012. After this time, the mother came to realize that the father had been understating his income firm 2001 to 2012, with the exception of 2004. Upon learning this fact, the mother applied under British Columbia's Family Law Act to retroactively vary child support for the period in which the father underreported his income and underpaid his child support.
The Application first appeared before a hearing judge who awarded the mother $23,000 in retroactive child support. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the father was successful in overturning the decision. The court referred to a 2006 Supreme Court of Canada decision, which held that an Application for child support under the Divorce Act had to be made while the child was still "a child of the marriage". The court held that the same position should be made to an Application under the province's Family Law Act.
The mother appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the majority's decision, the court stated that Applications for retroactive child support must be analyzed through the provincial and federal laws for which they are based. The court stated that its decision in 2006 only applied to the Divorce Act, and should not be interpreted as an imposition on all provincial laws dealing with the issue of child support.
The SCC held that it was within the law to to award a retroactive variance of child support. Upon reviewing the facts of the case, the court held that the father had underreported his income, which lead to his failure to meet his child support obligations. The court also found that the payor father would not experience undue hardship if he was required to make the payment of retroactive child support. As a result, the hearing judge's decision was enforced and the father was required to pay $23,000 plus costs. And we are confident that those costs would be significant.
If you are dealing with a complication arising from a situation of retroactive child support as it applies to your family law and parenting matter, we invite you to contact an experienced lawyer at our firm for more information about how we may be of assistance.
Aubrey Sherman is the managing partner at Sherman Law LLP in Kitchener, Ontario. His practice focuses on family law, estate planning, and estate administration. The team at Sherman Law LLP in Waterloo Region has over 40 years of experience providing clients with creative and innovative solutions. If you wish to discuss your family law or estate planning matter in further detail, please contact our office to arrange for a consultation. We can be reached by phone at 519-884-0034 or by email.
The Unified Family Court in Kitchener of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently held that an emergency and urgent motion during COVID-19 required an affidavit in support of the motion, service on the Applicant father, and grounds identifying why the matter before the court was of urgency.
Madam Justice L. Madsen held in Bruni v. Daunheimer-Bruni, 2020 ONSC 2017 that an urgent and emergency ex parte motion in writing could not be heard because counsel for the Respondent mother failed to file any affidavit in support of the motion setting out how any of the issues raised in the motion could be considered to be urgent. The Respondent mother was the moving party of the motion and was seeking, inter alia, permission to travel with the children without the consent of the Applicant father during COVID-19 emergency orders. The court held that there was no grounds of urgency since there was no affidavit in support of the motion, a federal travel advisory recommending against all international travel, and all Ontarians were being urged to stay at home and not to travel. If the Respondent mother wished to pursue her Motion to Change, she was required to have her documents issued and served accordingly in accordance with the Family Law Rules. The court stated that the matter would then be held in its ordinary course, which would require service on the Applicant father.
What we learn from this case is that it is always important to retain experienced family law counsel to ensure that you have all of the required evidence before the court. All motions including those of an urgent and emergency nature require an affidavit in support of the motion containing all of your grounds for the motion and evidence by way of exhibits. If you fail to provide this information to the court, your motion will not be successful and will be adjourned or dismissed.
If you are dealing with a complication arising from a situation of mobility and COVID-19 as it applies to your family law and parenting matter, we invite you to contact an experienced lawyer at our firm for more information about how we may be of assistance.
Aubrey Sherman is the managing partner at Sherman Law LLP in Kitchener, Ontario. His practice focuses on family law, estate planning, and estate administration. The team at Sherman Law LLP in Waterloo Region has over 40 years of experience providing clients with creative and innovative solutions. If you wish to discuss your family law or estate planning matter in further detail, please contact our office to arrange for a consultation. We can be reached by phone at 519-884-0034 or by email.
In Grossman v. Kline, 2020 ONSC 2714, Madam Justice J. Akbarali of the Toronto Superior Court of Justice released a recent decision from a family law emergency urgent motion concerning shared parenting and one parent's desire to self-isolate with their child at the cottage to the objection of the other parent during COVID-19. The parents in this case cohabitated for 2.5 years. They separated in May 2017. Following the separation, in October 2017, the parents reached a partial Separation Agreement that included an equal time-shared parenting plan for the child. The mother is a family physician who was diagnosed with cancer and is at high risk of contracting COVID-19 due to being immune-compromised as a result of cancer treatments. The father is a lawyer who decided to self-isolate with his new partner, her daughter, and her parents are their cottage in Thornbury, Ontario. This arrangement created a situation where the child would reside at the cottage during the father’s parenting time, which was some distance away from Toronto where the mother lives.
The mother brought an urgent emergency motion seeking temporary sole custody of the child and an order that the child would reside with the mother for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the mother sought to suspend the father’s in-person access, or in the alternative, an order that he not attend at the cottage or invite third-parties into his home.
The mother’s argument was that the father’s self-isolation at the cottage posed an enhanced risk to her health and was in breach of public health orders advising against gatherings of more than 5 people who are not from the same household. The mother claimed in particular that as the father did not reside with his new partner prior to the pandemic, he cannot suggest that they have now formed a single household.
In response, the father argued that the current arrangement was mutually beneficial for the child and everyone else involved and should therefore continue. The father submitted that residing with his new partner and her parents allowed her parents to take care of the child when needed and also enabled the child to spend time outdoors without encountering others since Thornbury had lower population density. The father stated that everyone residing at the cottage with him was following the appropriate safety measures and that they do in fact constitute a single household, and therefore were not in breach of any public health orders.
There is a presumption that existing court orders and parenting agreements should continue unless a parent’s lifestyle or behaviour raises sufficient concerns about parental judgment such that direct parent/child contact should be limited, as outlined in Justice Pazaratz’s recent decision of Ribeiro v. Wright, 2020 ONSC 1829. In this case, the question for the Court was: Should the existing parenting arrangement be changed in light of the father’s conduct and the prevailing public health orders so that the child’s best interests are protected?
The court held that the father’s arrangements were reasonable. There were not concerns regarding parental judgement that would warrant suspending direct parent/child contact. The court was of the view that the father’s decision to form a single household with his new partner and her parents provided substantial benefits to all member of the household, including the child. The fact that the father did not reside with his new partner prior to the pandemic did not preclude the formation of a single household during the pandemic. The court held that self-isolating at the cottage did not pose increased risks to the mother, as the father would have contact with his new partner in Toronto when access to the child was facilitated between the parties. The mother’s motion was dismissed.
Parents who wish to self-isolate with their children at the cottage during COVID-19 must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and there are circumstances where such actions have substantial benefits. Parents should not use the COVID-19 epidemic as a reason to deny reasonable temporary relocation to a cottage as a method of self-isolation or social distancing, and the best interest of the child is still of paramount consideration.
If you are dealing with a complication arising from a situation of self-isolating or social distancing at a cottage as it applies to your family law and parenting matter, we invite you to contact a lawyer at our firm for more information about how we may be of assistance.
Aubrey Sherman is the managing partner at Sherman Law LLP in Kitchener, Ontario. His practice focuses on family law, estate planning, and estate administration. The team at Sherman Law LLP in Waterloo Region has over 40 years of experience providing clients with creative and innovative solutions. If you wish to discuss your family law or estate planning matter in further detail, please contact our office to arrange for a consultation. We can be reached by phone at 519-884-0034 or by email.
In numerous ways our daily lives have had to be put on hold since COVID-19 and requirements to social distance must continue to prevail. In the recent case of Ribeiro v. Wright, 2020 ONSC 1829, Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz of the Hamilton Superior Court of Justice recently released the first endorsement with respect to family law and urgent matters of access dealing with COVID-19. In this case, an emergency and urgent Notice of Motion was brought by the Applicant on March 22, 2020, in addition to an Affidavit in support of the motion. The motion was brought seeking to suspend all in-person access due to COVID-19.
As this was the first case dealing with this issue, the court took time to ensure that they established the seriousness of COVID-19 and wanted to ensure that parents are maintaining access periods in good faith and with mutual respect to unnecessarily refusing access to the other parent.
The court noted that now more than ever, children require the love and support of both parents, and existing parenting arrangements should be presumed to continue subject to any necessary modifications required to adhere to COVID-19 related precautions. The court noted that modifications could include one parent being in 14 day self-isolation as a result of recent travel or personal illness. In this case, the motion was brought due to one parent believing that the other parent would not obey the social distancing policy without sufficient grounds.
The triage judge did not authorize this mater to proceed as an urgent hearing at this time. While the court did not find that this case was urgent, it did acknowledge that any reckless exposure to COVID-19 would be met with zero tolerance. The court’s decision was without-prejudice to the issue being returned to court if more serious and specific COVID-19 related issues arise. Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz was of the view that suspending a child’s access to one parent may be contrary to their best interests due to the risk of emotional harm that can occur when a child does not get to spend time with both parents.
The court has stated that if a parent is concerned that COVID-19 creates an urgent issue relating to parenting, they are able to bring an emergency motion before the court, but they should not presume that raising such an issue in of itself will result in an urgent hearing. The procedure that the court will consider will include:
Parents should not use the COVID-19 epidemic as a reason to deny access to the other parent, and the best interest of the child is still of paramount consideration. Mr. Justice Pazaratz reiterated that during times of limited judicial resources, the court will be looking for evidence that parents have made good faith efforts to communicate, to show mutual respect, and to come up with creative and realistic proposals that demonstrate parental insight and COVID-19 awareness and precautions.
If you are dealing with a complication arising from parenting/access and COVID-19 in relation to your family law and parenting matter, we invite you to contact a lawyer at our firm for more information about how we may be of assistance.
Aubrey Sherman is the managing partner at Sherman Law LLP in Kitchener, Ontario. His practice focuses on family law, estate planning, and estate administration. The team at Sherman Law LLP in Waterloo Region has over 40 years of experience providing clients with creative and innovative solutions. If you wish to discuss your family law or estate planning matter in further detail, please contact our office to arrange for a consultation. We can be reached by phone at 519-884-0034 or by email.
