This is interesting enough. From what I read here, A hearing is to be held within 6 months of custody or access to a child for custody and access issues for claims brought forth under the CLR Act Ont.
Children's Law Reform Act R.S.O. 1990 c. C.12
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/S...c12_e.htm#BK23
Delay
26. (1) Where an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child has not been heard within six months after the commencement of the proceedings, the clerk or local registrar of the court shall list the application for the court and give notice to the parties of the date and time when and the place where the court will fix a date for the hearing of the application. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 26 (1).
Directions
(2) At a hearing of a matter listed by the clerk or local registrar in accordance with subsection (1), the court by order may fix a date for the hearing of the application and may give such directions in respect of the proceedings and make such order in respect of the costs of the proceedings as the court considers appropriate. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 26 (2).
Early date
(3) Where the court fixes a date under subsection (2), the court shall fix the earliest date that, in the opinion of the court, is compatible with a just disposition of the application. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 26 (3).
Discussion
If a hearing is to be held within the alloted time, and if this does not occur, the Registar is responsible for scheduling a hearing on custody/access issues.
How can one party claim status quo if the other party is waiting for due process. It seems to me that the process in itself creates status quo situations.
Who's rights are violated. After all it is a law
Children's Law Reform Act R.S.O. 1990 c. C.12
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/S...c12_e.htm#BK23
Delay
26. (1) Where an application under this Part in respect of custody of or access to a child has not been heard within six months after the commencement of the proceedings, the clerk or local registrar of the court shall list the application for the court and give notice to the parties of the date and time when and the place where the court will fix a date for the hearing of the application. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 26 (1).
Directions
(2) At a hearing of a matter listed by the clerk or local registrar in accordance with subsection (1), the court by order may fix a date for the hearing of the application and may give such directions in respect of the proceedings and make such order in respect of the costs of the proceedings as the court considers appropriate. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 26 (2).
Early date
(3) Where the court fixes a date under subsection (2), the court shall fix the earliest date that, in the opinion of the court, is compatible with a just disposition of the application. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 26 (3).
Discussion
If a hearing is to be held within the alloted time, and if this does not occur, the Registar is responsible for scheduling a hearing on custody/access issues.
How can one party claim status quo if the other party is waiting for due process. It seems to me that the process in itself creates status quo situations.
Who's rights are violated. After all it is a law
Comment