COVID-19 and Divorce Information Centre

COVID-19 & Divorce Resources

Welcome to the COVID-19 and Divorce Information Centre. Our team at Russell Alexander Collaborative Family Lawyers is working hard to create a useful resource to help anyone trying to navigate a divorce or family law dispute here in Ontario, Canada.

Explore these collections below:

How COVID-19 Impacts Our Service

Russell Alexander Collaborative Family Lawyers is committed to following the guidelines and recommendations outlined by the Public Health Agency of Canada to ensure the safety and wellbeing of employees, colleagues, clients, friends, and families. Please contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.

Phone: 1 877 791 6335
Email: reception@russellalexander.com

Listen to our latest Podcasts on COVID-19


More Firm Resources:

Latest Ontario Family Law COVID-19 Decisions:

  • Hrvoic v. Hrvoic, 2020 ONSC 1711 – commercial and family counsel participated in a case conference via telephone to discuss a non-urgent matter pertaining to applicant seeking the respondent to sell their shares in the family business to the applicant. Court deems underlying litigation not urgent and therefore makes no assessment of the merits of the motion for leave to appeal.
  • Onuoha v. Onuoha, 2020 ONSC 1815 – court found the matter not urgent at this time as the children are currently residing in Canada with the other parent and stressed this is not the time to move the children to another jurisdiction in light of the travel advisory guidelines.
  • Chrisjohn v. Hillier, SCJ Court File No: F1098/18 – emergency motion to the court seeking police assistance order due to the respondent withholding access to the child out of fear of applicant lack of social distancing measures. The court found the respondent’s conduct in contravention to the existing order and therefore constituted the matter as urgent.
  • Le v. Norris, 2020 ONSC 1932 – The court ruled that although the reasons the applicant had for not obeying the existing order were not reasonable, albeit understandable in light of the COVID-19 situation. The court concluded that the parties should make very effort possible to adhere to any existing court orders in light of the circumstances.
  • Perkins v. Macierzynska, SCJ Court File No: FC-19-876 – court did not find on the evidence that the applicant had failed or was unable to adhere to COVID-19 protocol and stated the existing order should be upheld.
  • Zee v. Quon, SCJ Court File No: FS-16-412436 – court found the suspension of the applicant’s access to the child and that the respondent be retrained from contacting the applicant’s place of employment fit the urgency requirement.
  • Eden v. Eden, SCJ Court File No: 171/19 – court finds the applicant’s actions on the facts in relation to COVID-19 protocols did not warrant an urgent change in the existing order.
  • Jackman v. Doyle, March 20, 2020 — Emergency motion granted. Dad attempts to change primary residence by withholding the children. Children ordered returned to mother “forthwith”. If necessary, Police are directed to enforce the order and deliver the children to the mother.
  • Motion re: Douglas for Access — Motion for access arrangements to be restored denied by Triage Judge due to the request not being urgent or an emergency. Mother was withholding access due to Father being exposed to COVID-19 at work.
  • Motion re: Smith v. Sieger — New decision released from Justice Kaufman regarding COVID-19 and the repatriation of a child from the US where the child was receiving medical treatment.
  • Endorsement re: Ribeiro v Wright (COVID-19 Protocol) — Newly decision released from Justice Pazaratz regarding child visitation and social distancing during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Health Links:

Financial support resources:

Staying in Touch:

The COVID-19 outbreak is a fluid and evolving situation. To stay informed about how our firm is responding as we release new information, please subscribe to our newsletter.

Subscribe today!