Emergency Orders in Family Law: Some Real-Life Examples

Family disputes do not always unfold on a predictable schedule.   Especially with the upcoming holidays – and especially if you have kids – there can be many unexpected plot-twists when dealing with your Ex.

Sometimes, a dispute will escalate quickly, and will need to be dealt with long before your next scheduled court date. You may need a court to step in quickly, to resolve it.

The good news is that the Family Courts in Ontario recognize this reality: In limited circumstances they can issue what are commonly referred to as “Emergency Orders”.

We’ve talked in general about them before but it’s helpful to take a look at some concrete examples, taken from real-life Ontario cases that have already come before the courts.

But first a little Q&A-style refresher:

Q: What Are “Emergency Orders”?

A: Emergency Orders are simply special, fast-tracked orders made by the court when a regular Motion could take too long and result in real harm to your child, or to you or another party.  In other words, it’s the result of a special category of Motions to respond to urgent situations.

Q: What Laws Govern Emergency Orders?

A: In Ontario, an application for an Emergency Order is governed by Rule 14 of the Family Law Rules.

Q: What Amounts to an “Emergency”?

A: In deciding whether a matter is truly urgent, judges apply a well-established set of principles. At the centre is the question of immediate harm. There must be a clear and credible risk that your child’s safety, emotional well-being, or stability is threatened. The risk must be imminent, not theoretical. Urgency can also arise where your child’s circumstances might change dramatically before the can schedule a standard hearing. Examples include situations where your Ex is:

• Threatening to remove your child from Ontario
• Refusing to return your child after parenting time
• Taking unilateral actions that destabilize your child’s routine, school attendance, or medical care.

Q: Do I Need to Notify the Other Parent?

A:  Maybe.  There are two primary ways an urgent motion may proceed: 1) with notice or 2) without notice.

A motion with notice is still fast-tracked, but the other party receives the materials and has a chance to respond, even on short timelines.

A motion without notice (sometimes called an ex parte motion) is reserved for the most extreme situations that cannot wait for the normal hearing timelines. The court must be satisfied that notifying the other party could cause harm, or that there is simply no time to provide notice.

Q: What Kind of Emergency Orders Can I Get?

When granting an Emergency Order, the judge will look at the facts, and tailor the urgent remedy to the specific risk.  These kinds of orders are usually temporary, and – depending on the circumstances – they might look like:

• Temporary changes to decision-making responsibility, parenting time, or contact
• An Order preventing the other parent from removing your child from Ontario; or
• Orders requiring the return of a child to the other parent.
• Police enforcement provisions.

Some Real-Life Examples

Now let’s look at some real-life illlustrations, drawn from recent Ontario court decisions:

• Failure to return a child. As part of what the court called “challenging” litigation between the parents in Woodley v. Cipolla, 2022 ONSC 7096 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jtk8n>, the court blamed the father’s behaviour for causing needless conflict in connection with their 7-year-old-daughter, who had been living with the mother for the past five years. On four occasions the father had refused to return the child to the mother after his allotted parenting time – which required her to obtain an Emergency Order for the girl’s return. On the last occasion the father had taken the girl to the U.S., but did not return because there was a warrant for his arrest in Ontario.  The mother obtained an Emergency Order to retrieve the child from the U.S., and to suspend the father’s in-person parenting time until he could return to Canada.
• Mental health issues. In Keiser v. Mahepath, 2025 ONSC 6639 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kgqfc>, the divorced parents of a 9-year-old child had an upcoming trial to resolve their remaining parenting and child support issues.  Their marriage ended in what the court described as “chaos and violence”; the father accused the mother of being manipulative, coercive and self-cetered, while she claimed he was controlling and belittling.  Right after the marriage fell apart, the mother return to live with her parents after having a mental health breakdown.  The father got an Emergency Order to have the child come live with him, at least until the mother’s treating physician could confirm that there were no mental health concerns over her ability to have unsupervised time with the child.
• Ordering a parent to consent. In Hatzis v. Hatzis, 2025 ONSC 2814 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kc66p>, the mother had been taking the child to visit various cities in the U.S. (New York, and Chicago) with the father’s consent. However these trips had caused friction with the father, who accused the mother of withholding trip details and hotel names from him.  He then refused to consent to let the child go on an upcoming trip to Punta Cana, so the mother had to bring an Emergency Motion. The father ultimately acquiesced in the trip, but was ordered to pay the mother her legal costs of $3,000 for forcing her into resorting to the courts. The court added: “The parties’ disputes over travel do not show one of them in a better light than the other.  Vivi and George are stubborn and disinclined to work together.”

·         Holiday schedules.  In Clarke v. Denyes, 2025 ONSC 1894 (CanLII), https://canlii.ca/t/kb53r the separated parents of two children had numerous protracted and high-conflict disputes about relocation, parenting, decision-making and child support – and many other things.  The court largely blamed the mother, who seemed to want to keep things “locked in dispute”.  This resulted in what the court called an “assembly line” of Motions; in one of them the father was entirely successful on his Emergency Motion just before Christmas, when he and the mother were unable to agree on a holiday schedule.

Of course not all Emergency Motions are successful – and not all of them should be brought in the first place.  The courts have made it abundantly clear that they are not suitable for situations where there’s no true “emergency”.

This was the case in Persaud v. Jeffrey, 2024 ONSC 6678 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k85h9>, Where the parents had allowed the litigation to languish for almost six years.  They took no meaningful steps towards a final resolution, and repeatedly adjourned conferences intended to explore settlement. Against that background of prolonged and deliberate inactivity, the father suddenly brought what he termed an “Emergency Motion” – supported by hundreds of pages of affidavit material.  He asked for a sweeping order that included police enforcement to compel his 9-year-old daughter to attend visits with him.  The court refused. It noted the parents’ long periods of inactivity in the matter, and the complexity of the issues.  These kinds of late stage “Emergency” steps were not to be used as a substitute for the regular trial procedures, the court said.

The Takeaway

For parents, the key takeaway is that Emergency Motions are meant only for exceptional circumstances. The courts take emergency requests seriously, but they will expect you to use this recourse only sparingly.

If you are unsure whether your situation meets the threshold for urgency, speaking with one of our experienced Family Lawyers promptly.  We can help you understand your options, and the best next steps.