User CP
New posts
Advertising
|
Reference Important threads |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Rosen v. Rosen, 2005 CanLII 480 (ON SC)
Date: 2005-01-13 Docket: 20391/05 URL: CanLII - 2005 CanLII 480 (ON SC) Citation: Rosen v. Rosen, 2005 CanLII 480 (ON SC), Many people come to this site with "urgent" or "emergency" situations. The above case law is a great summary of what defines an "emergency" for which a motion can be brought forward before a case conference. Many come that the situation in their home is so dire that they have to have exclusive possession and that it is an "emergency". More than likely, it is not and this is how the court may determine so: Quote:
Hyde v. Szabo, 2007 CanLII 46168 (ON SC) Date: 2007-11-01 Docket: 4740/05 URL: CanLII - 2007 CanLII 46168 (ON SC) Citation: Hyde v. Szabo, 2007 CanLII 46168 (ON SC) Quote:
In light of this case law, any barrister and solicitor who brings a motion on an urgent (emergency) basis before the court that does not meet this criteria in my personal opinion should have costs awarded against them. It should fall on the lawyer representing their client on the "urgent" request to insure that their client's evidence brought forward meets the criteria. Furthermore, Legal Aid Ontario should be responsible for financing and funding litigants who bring "urgent" matters prior to case conference on an "emergency" basis. LOA lacks the governance structure to insure that public funds are not wasted on frivolous matters and should be accountable to both parties to the litigation for how public funds are used and possibly abused. Good Luck! Tayken Last edited by Tayken; 10-07-2012 at 09:52 AM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawyers oversee the actions of other lawyers.What could possibly go wrong?
![]() ![]() |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
"Allegations of nothing and your motions for free." Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it You file an emergency in the SCJ That ain't workin' that's the way you do it Allegations that mean nothin' and Legal Aid for free Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it Lemme tell ya them lawyers ain't dumb Maybe get a cost award against your client Maybe get a the judge to order a false status quo We gotta call the police, Children's aid and all their friends as witnesses We gotta move on this motion We gotta move on an em-er-gen-cyyyyyyyyyy, ex-parte that is! I want my... I want my... I want my Legal Aid... I want my... I want my... I want my Legal Aid... for free that is... Last edited by Tayken; 10-07-2012 at 10:43 AM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lmao!!!!:d
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Excellent post!
Quote:
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() <HR style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff; COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Family Law Rule 14(4) provides that a motion can’t be served or heard before a case conference has been held unless it is a decision of hardship or urgency or in the interests of justice not to require a case conference. Note that an urgent motion is not necessarily synonymous with a motion without justice. Both should be infrequent but the test found Family Law Rule 14 (12) to justify proceeding without notice is very stringent. Test met: immediate danger of the children’s removal from Ontario, immediate danger to the health and safety of the children, or irreparable harm, or solid evidence of urgency from the children’s perspective; abduction, threats of harm, dire financial circumstances, or financial hardship to the children documented by particulars of their unmet needs. Test not met: mere fact of being in receipt of social assistance, mere fact of denial of access, anticipatory breach of parenting regime based on "fear" without foundation, issues of timing or convenience personal to, or caused by the moving party, mother's request to move children; alleged urgency is her need to meet her employer's notice requirement, mother's request for child support brought on the basis that father had stalled and delayed for 1.5 years already. ffice ![]() ![]() ![]() |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Can you bring a motion after a settlement conference in which the judge refused to rule and only submitted a endorsement to settle issues?
Can that endorsement be converted to an order and how would I do that? The respondent has refused to get a lawyer, refused to settle, and now is refusing to pay taxes on a property that The applicant had to flea to due to abuse. No children involved, 30 year marriage. The home is jointly owned but applicant cannot afford and is not able to sell due to respondents refusal. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for this post about emergency motions. It is interesting to me because my husband has been to 2 in the past 2 years, neither of which met this criteria (as far as we can tell). I would love your opinion on the situation, as well as to help anyone in a similar situation. I find often in this system you can do all the research you want, consult with lawyers, but in the end, complete opposite. As far as we can tell from being in court repeatedly for the past 2 years, it all depends on the judge you get, which is why this system is completely broken!
In Aug 2011 my hubby's ex moved. Desite my hubby sending emails requesting that they discuss her move and the child (boy, now 10) school for the following year, the ex refuses to tell us where she is moving. The child is crying (no lie) all summer to us, confused what is happening. Litterly asking us where mom is taking him. So, one day after she moves (Aug 17) and 2 weeks before school, she emails hubby to say where she moved (30 min away) from both current school and us (we bought house 2 blocks from son's school). She tells him which school she wants him to attend in new neighbourhood and tells him to 'co-operate'. Access at this time is approx 45% hubby, 55% ex (temporary agreement, court signed). So of course hubby refuses this. Child has been in same school since kindergarden, 2 blocks from us. Ex calls immediate 'emergency' motion. 3 days before school, court. For once in 2 years, we win!!! Child stays in school near us and judge changes schedule to 50/50. Also orders OCL at our request. Costs are still to be determined in this matter. Flash forward one year. OCL does their report over the fall/winter. Unfortunately, OCL recommends child primary residence be with mother and change schools to her location (I can write a 10 page agruement over this, but will try to stay on topic). Will just say that the only reason OCL gives is that hubby works shifts, and this can be confusing to child (BS, and we think extremely discrimatory against shift workers, but thats another topic for another time!) So OCL report is out in Feb. Our lawyer (who we use for advise, not court, can't afford anymore!) tells us they will have to have a case conference on this matter. So we wait. Ex and her lawyer know hubby is against new school or change to access. Aug 2012, ex calls 'emergency' motion to change school and access based on OCL report. No case conference, no nothing. We consult 2 lawyers and do a ton research, all seem to say status quo is never changed on an emergency motion. Needs to go to trial, need to have case conference, etc. This is pointed out in our affidavit, as well as that there is no harm at all to child to stay in this school until a proper trial, case conference, whatever. End of story goes, ex wins, change of access from 50/50 to 30/70. Change schools. And worst even yet, awards her costs at $3000. Were we wrong to not just agree with OCL report? What happened here? Thanks all. |
![]() |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Court seemed almost fun today | Hephzibah | General Chat | 12 | 05-28-2011 12:24 PM |
Ontario Justice Bruce Pugsley's recent comments in family court | logicalvelocity | Political Issues | 7 | 09-22-2010 06:10 PM |
Brampton, Ontario court officials continue to obstruct justice by misleading and misi | logicalvelocity | Political Issues | 0 | 05-23-2010 09:31 AM |
Mother frustrated with family court | Grover | Divorce & Family Law | 14 | 11-09-2009 01:30 PM |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:59 AM.