Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 10-11-2012, 10:54 PM
kidsRworthit kidsRworthit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 132
kidsRworthit is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Determination of urgency conditions for Family Law Motions

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.
fficeffice" />>>
  #2  
Old 10-12-2012, 12:54 AM
arabian's Avatar
arabian arabian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 10,694
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

I don't see the relevance of your son's hockey interest in here.

Really, get a grip. 1% of 1% of kids in minor hockey go on to play in the NHL. You'd be better to focus your energy, time and money on plans for your son's education.

re-read what you have posted^ - do you seriously think your dilemma over your son's hockey fits into this???
  #3  
Old 10-12-2012, 01:13 AM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
blinkandimgone blinkandimgone is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,411
blinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the rough
Default

Curious, why are you shitting on the OP for what his ex is doing?
  #4  
Old 10-12-2012, 01:19 AM
arabian's Avatar
arabian arabian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 10,694
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

It takes two to tangle blink and one to stop the nonsense.

I have a totally different view than you on this obviously. I think Family Court and emergency motions should be used for serious issues.
  #5  
Old 10-12-2012, 01:28 AM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
blinkandimgone blinkandimgone is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,411
blinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the rough
Default

He isn't claiming his issues fall into the above described category, she is - she's the one that called the urgent hearing, he`s just shown how it DOESN'T meet the criteria.


It isn't about hockey, but the fact that mom is using hockey , something the child clearly enjoys, as a means to control or initiate a change in cistody. A nine year old doesn't have the capacity to understand the total implications of agreeing to play hockey here or there, he just wants to play hockey and has no idea that choosing where to play will colour where he lives, how much he'll see dad etc. Mom is trying to force the kid to choose WHERE to play hockey as a means to shift the child to the community she decided to move to.

What's she's doing is wrong, and it isn't so trivial as 'hockey'.
  #6  
Old 10-12-2012, 01:42 AM
arabian's Avatar
arabian arabian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 10,694
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

I think this is a sad situation. Kid wants to play hockey and parents are at odds as to where he plays. The fact that it has ended up as a court issues is a total waste of court resources. IMO both parents should be censured as they couldn't resolve this issue between themselves.

I don't feel this is just as the OP has stated. Obviously these two people are highly charged and passionate about their future NHL star. The OP has clearly stated he feels his son should be playing in competitive leagues so son will go to NHL. The way I'm reading the post this isn't just the mother - it's both parents who are contributing to the cess pool.
  #7  
Old 10-12-2012, 02:09 AM
WorkingDAD WorkingDAD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,660
WorkingDAD is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
I think this is a sad situation. Kid wants to play hockey and parents are at odds as to where he plays. The fact that it has ended up as a court issues is a total waste of court resources. IMO both parents should be censured as they couldn't resolve this issue between themselves.

I don't feel this is just as the OP has stated. Obviously these two people are highly charged and passionate about their future NHL star. The OP has clearly stated he feels his son should be playing in competitive leagues so son will go to NHL. The way I'm reading the post this isn't just the mother - it's both parents who are contributing to the cess pool.
If every parent think that why bother there is only 1% as you said we probably would not have even NHL.

Just as a side note: If parent think that kid can make it and willing (and able) to put effort and resource in to it kid have a chance - even 1% as you suggested. Otherwise he will not have even that 1% chance.

And yes I agree with blink - it has nothing to do with hockey on mom's part. Try to read between the lines...

WD
  #8  
Old 10-12-2012, 02:20 AM
arabian's Avatar
arabian arabian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 10,694
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

I said 1% of 1% make it to NHL. I cited this because there is such pressure put on young people by their parents to fulfill the desires of their parents. I just find it very difficult to accept that the issue is before a judge. 9 yr old's hockey issues in family court? Ridiculous in my opinion. Parents should be forced to work these issues out without taking them to court. Yep one court room you have a couple and their kid fighting about where kid plays hockey and in the next court room you have a kid who has been abused by a parent and is being placed into a safe home.
  #9  
Old 10-12-2012, 08:37 AM
kidsRworthit kidsRworthit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 132
kidsRworthit is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blinkandimgone View Post
He isn't claiming his issues fall into the above described category, she is - she's the one that called the urgent hearing, he`s just shown how it DOESN'T meet the criteria.


It isn't about hockey, but the fact that mom is using hockey , something the child clearly enjoys, as a means to control or initiate a change in cistody. A nine year old doesn't have the capacity to understand the total implications of agreeing to play hockey here or there, he just wants to play hockey and has no idea that choosing where to play will colour where he lives, how much he'll see dad etc. Mom is trying to force the kid to choose WHERE to play hockey as a means to shift the child to the community she decided to move to.

What's she's doing is wrong, and it isn't so trivial as 'hockey'.

Precisely, well worded and very accurate: Thank you blinkandImgone!
The Justice dismissed the urgent motion initiated by our son's mother, stating it did not meet the urgency test.

Justice also noted NOM stated mom is seeking sole custody and decision making for children, and asked hockey focused counsel of mom if this was correct? Her counsel agreed. Hockey is evidently being used ...as a means to shift the child to the community she decided to move to in August.

From the beginning, I have stressed that a balanced childhood is essential for any child and I oppose competitive hockey as it requires a 4 or 5 times weekly commitment from the child. This leaves the child unbalanced due to the extensive time and energy devoted to the competitive hockey team.

I have taken the Hockey Canada Speak Out course - highly recommended if one is volunteering in organized hockey in any capacity. I am aware of the 1% of 1% number making it to NHL. The NHL "dream" comment came from the mouth of my son. The OP's bf played in the NHL for a couple games and then had health issues and couldn't return. I know the reality, and have never even considered it seriously or promoted it AT ALL.

This issue is truly one of control: sole custody claim by mom for both kids. Mom is using hockey (our son wants to play in my new community = against hockey Registrar's rules of habitual school area) and dad's decisions which are dangerous to kids health as basis for sole custody claim.

Now, I have to defend myself at a mid November Case Conference of several allegations painting me as a father unfit to maintain 50/50 shared parenting and joint decision making of our two children (9 and 11). This status quo has been followed for 13 months, and since the kids had a 2 minute walk between their parents houses, worked extremely well. Present drama followed mom's decision to move 1/2 hr. away from rooted community and habitual school area = hockey registered area (3rd yr.). I cautioned her on implications to kids on move, but was assured she and bf would take care of all driving to school, sports, kids' extracurricular events.

Her counsel suggested a 4-way meeting in efforts to address issues and avoid CC and perhaps Settlement Conference. I said I would discuss it with my counsel. I remain cautiously optimistic, however, judging by the OP's prior actions: a. refused to sign final, final SA agreement after 2 thorough mediation sessions, dual counsel approval and many revisions, b. self-help action of removing our son from school on my parenting week (to have him attend competitive hockey tryout in her new community) c. request for CC for custody of children, and d. urgent Notice of Motion requesting custody of children and sole hockey and activity decision making.

I am forced to pursue legal defence position to fight for my kids.
  #10  
Old 10-12-2012, 10:57 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,148
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bthom View Post
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.
fficeffice" />>>
Please see the sticky posting regarding what defines "urgency" before the court which contains the jurisprudence:

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...e-court-13291/
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:24 PM.