April 20, 2021 – Urgent Matters During COVID Times

“The Notice to the Profession issued by the Chief Justice provides that urgent matters may include matters related to the safety of a parent or a child, or urgent issues related to the wellbeing of a child.

In Ribeiro v. Wright, 2020 ONSC 1829, released March 24, 2020, Pazaratz J. set out principles to aid in the determination of urgency with respect to parenting issues in this difficult time. He held that in most situations, there is a presumption that existing parenting arrangements will continue, subject to modifications to ensure that COVID-19 precautions are adhered to, including social distancing. Specific circumstances in a family, such as the need to self-isolate, personal risk factors of a parent, could necessitate restrictions on parenting time. He stressed that would be “zero tolerance” for a parent who recklessly exposes a child to any COVID-19 risk.

Pazaratz J. also emphasized that no matter how difficult the challenge, or what modifications or restrictions may be appropriate, we must find ways to maintain important parental relationships, above all in a safe way.

In Thomas v. Wohleber, 2020 ONSC 1965, at paragraph 38, Kurz J. provided guidance on what constitutes urgency at the present time:

1.    The concern must be immediate; that is one that cannot await resolution at a later date;

2.    The concern must be serious in the sense that it significantly affects the health or safety or economic well-being of parties and/or their children;

3.    The concern must be a definite and material rather than a speculative one. It must relate to something tangible (a spouse or child’s health, welfare, or dire financial circumstances) rather than theoretical;

4.     It must be one that has been clearly particularized in evidence and examples that describes the manner in which the concern reaches the level of urgency.

In my view, applying the Notice to the Profession and the caselaw, the motion brought by the mother is urgent. On Ms. Tomkins’ evidence, the children were removed from her care and she does not know where they are. She says that Mr. Che has not responded to texts for over one month now. Ms. Tomkins’ concern is immediate and serious. If Mr. Che has concerns about Ms. Tomkins’ admitted alcohol use, a plan must be developed having regard to that issue – it does not give license to unilaterally withhold the children with no information as to their whereabouts.

Tomkins v. Che, 2020 ONSC 2424 (CanLII) at 10-14