2026 ONSC 764 (Pazaratz J.) – ‘This Isn’t McDonald’s’ and the Cost of Casual Litigation
2026 ONSC 764 (Pazaratz J.) is a reminder that family court is not a casual, consequence-free forum for testing ideas.
The court opens with a line that has already become shorthand for a larger doctrine:
litigants do not “order” outcomes.
They invoke a process. That process has rules. It has proof burdens. And it has
cost consequences when positions are taken (or kept alive) without proportionality.
[1] “This isn’t McDonald’s.”
Laskowski v Laskowski, 2026 ONSC 764 (Pazaratz J.), at para 1.
The doctrine is not the metaphor; the doctrine is the warning
You can’t casually bring claims, maintain positions “just in case”, or abandon serious relief at the last minute without cost exposure.
The court explains what the McDonald’s line is actually doing.
It is not a punchline. It is a conduct classification: “family court is serious business”, and the legal and financial consequences are real.
[2] I sometimes use that line – out of desperate frustration – to wryly remind reckless and relentless litigants that family court is serious business. You can’t just walk up to the counter and ask the judge for whatever pops into your head. With no forethought. No rational justification. And no regard for the legal and financial consequences.
Laskowski v Laskowski, 2026 ONSC 764 (Pazaratz J.), at para 2.
The decision then converts the metaphor into procedural economics.
Paying money does not purchase a result.
[3] But that deceptively simple non sequitur – “This isn’t McDonald’s” – may also be food for thought for even the most earnest customers family court judges deal with every day.
a. At least at McDonald’s, when you pay your money you get a burger.
b. In family court, you could pay a thousand times more – ten thousand times more -- and end up with an empty bag.
Laskowski v Laskowski, 2026 ONSC 764 (Pazaratz J.), at para 3.
Proportionality: the predictable trajectory of cost-blind litigation
Family litigation becomes financially irrational when positions are advanced without proportionality and then sustained through momentum rather than proof.
This is the part many readers skip. The court is describing a repeated lifecycle seen in motion practice: the early “shopping list”, the midstream doubts once bills and costs arrive, and the
late-stage recognition that the process itself has become the injury.
[4] In every other walk of life, people are actually careful with their money. But in family court, money seems to be no object (until, of course, the time comes to pay).
Laskowski v Laskowski, 2026 ONSC 764 (Pazaratz J.), at para 4.
[5] Yes, everyone’s entitled to their day in court.
Laskowski v Laskowski, 2026 ONSC 764 (Pazaratz J.), at para 5.
[6] And yes, every parent tells me “I’m doing it for the child” and/or “You can’t put a price tag on children.” (Of course you can put a price tag on a Disney World vacation, which would do most kids more good.)
Laskowski v Laskowski, 2026 ONSC 764 (Pazaratz J.), at para 6.
[7] But in too many family court cases judges helplessly witness a predictable trajectory:
a. People start with tough talk and a shopping list of non-negotiable demands.
b. After a couple of interim legal bills – and maybe a few costs orders – they start to have doubts.
c. And by the end of the drawn-out, tortuous experience, they will have slowly, painfully morphed into regret and financial ruin.
d. Kind of like the people flying to Las Vegas are all excited. And the people flying back are all exhausted and pretending they won.
Laskowski v Laskowski, 2026 ONSC 764 (Pazaratz J.), at para 7.
A courthouse does not advertise its true price tag
The court is describing an access-to-justice problem: people enter family court without understanding the cost gravity of motion-driven litigation.
The “Golden Arches” paragraph is a straight warning that the
forum lacks consumer-style signalling. The result is repeated, avoidable financial harm driven by underestimating procedural escalation.
[8] “This isn’t McDonald’s.” But maybe we can learn from the fast-food giant’s marketing:
a. They’ve got Golden Arches to tell people what to expect.
b. Perhaps we should put giant neon dollar signs in front of our courthouse.
c. Anything, to help people understand the financial sinkhole they’re blindly wading into.
Laskowski v Laskowski, 2026 ONSC 764 (Pazaratz J.), at para 8.
The jurisprudential payload: keeping a claim alive forces the other side to spend
Maintaining a claim forces the responding party to prepare, and late-stage withdrawal does not erase induced cost.
Later in the endorsement, the “extra fries” callback is used for one specific doctrinal point:
procedural positions have externalities. If a party keeps relief in play (including in a confirmation form), the other side must respond to it. The resulting time and expense are not undone by a last-minute retreat.
[44] Which brings us to the second part of the father’s motion: his request to change a final child support order. And even here, there have been mis-steps.
a. Obviously, the father didn’t obtain an increase in parenting time. So quite apart from procedural issues, there’s no current basis for the set-off he was hoping to achieve pursuant to section 9 of the Guidelines.
b. Indeed -- during submissions -- the lawyer appearing as his agent suddenly advised that the father wouldn’t be pursuing that part of his motion.
c. But in the motion confirmation form dated January 30, 2026, that same lawyer confirmed that the father was indeed proceeding with his child support claim.
d. Which of course meant that the mother’s lawyer still had to respond to the whole of the father’s motion, even if he didn’t really intend to pursue all of it.
e. “This isn’t McDonald’s” where you can just order those extra fries and it’s no big deal if you decide not to eat them.
f. It is a big deal if you bring a motion to take away child support – and if you keep saying you’re pursuing that claim – only to reveal at the last minute that you’ve changed your mind.
Laskowski v Laskowski, 2026 ONSC 764 (Pazaratz J.), at para 44.
Read-through: this fits the broader Pazaratz line without needing fanfare
This endorsement is consistent with the court’s repeated emphasis on proportionality, efficiency, and costs as behavioural regulation.
The decision does not require dramatization to be useful. Its utility is structural:
it converts a memorable opener into a procedural rule-set about how motions impose reciprocal burdens, and how cost consequences arise when those burdens are created without discipline.
Reference
Laskowski v Laskowski, 2026 ONSC 764 (Pazaratz J.), endorsement dated February 17, 2026
