This Week in Family Law Newsletter

COVID-19 Update

Justice Conlan, in Atkinson v. Wilton, 2020 CarswellOnt 7421 (S.C.J.), made it clear that it is absolutely critical to ensure that family law litigants can start having their cases heard, whether they are "urgent" or not:

[11] Further, on this business of "urgency", I would be remiss if I did not add something to the conversation, for what it is worth. Judges are not elected in Canada, but we are public servants. The Courts are an essential service, in my opinion. Access to justice and the accountability of judges to the public that we serve demand that the Courts, in my humble view, not be too quick to slam the door shut on a request to be heard on the basis that the matter is not important, or "urgent", enough at this time. The gulf between judges and the public at large has never been as wide as it is currently, during this extraordinary health crisis. I, for one, do not intend to exacerbate that by being overly discriminating in the determination of what constitutes an "urgent" matter, especially in family law proceedings involving the custody of and access with children. [emphasis added]

Refusing the Right of First Refusal - Again

Barry v. Barry, 2020 CarswellOnt 7283 (Ont. C.A.) - Feldman, Lauwers and Huscroft JJ.A.

The Start of a Long and Winding (and Bumpy) Road that Likely Leads to Ottawa - Part 2

Neshkiwe v. Hare, 2020 CarswellOnt 8295 (C.J.) - Finlayson J.

To read the full newsletter of Franks & Zalev - This Week in Family Law (Issue 27) click here.