|
Family - Interlocutory (2). Gao v. Rayner
In Gao v. Rayner (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court draws the distinction between interlocutory enforcement orders and final orders:[18] The first is whether by making a final change to a final order, MacPherson J. exceeded the bounds of an enforcement order and effectively determined a motion to change without any of the procedural protections built into a motion to change.
[19] There is no doubt that courts have the jurisdiction to make temporary parenting orders on an enforcement proceeding under rule 1(8). Once a judge finds a failure to comply with an order, a remedial, substantive order under rule 1(8) may be made. A judge has broad discretion to make an order found necessary to address the failure to comply. This discretion is particularly important when an order addresses a child’s well-being: Bouchard v. Sgovio, 2021 ONCA 709 at paras. 48-51.
[20] However, there is a difference between temporarily altering provisions of a final order and varying or replacing those provisions on a final basis: Bouchard at para. 54; S-L.T. v. M.L., 2023 ONSC 5551 at para. 21. . Gillespie v. Gillespie
In Gillespie v. Gillespie (Div Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court considers interlocutory family orders, here for support:[32] As stated by this Court in Lokhandwala v. Khan, 2019 ONSC 6346 (Div. Ct.), at para. 5, “[i]n family law, temporary support Orders are designed to establish or maintain a reasonable state of affairs pending trial. Unless expressly stated otherwise, temporary Orders are without prejudice to adjustment by the trial judge. Interlocutory appeals in family law matters are costly, time-consuming, and tend to impair the reasonable and efficient course of those proceedings.”
....
[35] A status quo merely refers to the existing situation before a dispute or legal matter arose. In parenting disputes, a status quo is not a substantive advantage except insofar as it informs a child’s best interests. Courts prefer to maintain a child’s caregiving routines until such time as there is a final determination, unless and until it is no longer in a child’s best interests to do so. . A. v. B.
In A. v. B. (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal granted a motion to quash a family law appeal, here from a motion order "declining to seal or otherwise restrict public access to the record or decisions in the Superior Court proceeding".
The court considers 'open court' privacy rights of children, here in a parenting context regarding interlocutory orders:[26] The relevant issue on this motion is about the appropriate appeal route and therefore which court has authority, under the Courts of Justice Act, to address the important privacy interests raised by a challenge to the motion judge’s order. Undoubtedly, children’s privacy interests can necessitate the application of special safeguards, which include the right to have their privacy respected “at all stages of the proceedings”: Ontario (Children’s Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2018 ONCA 559, at paras. 73-75, leave to appeal refused, [2018] S.C.C.A. No. 360. To state that such interests are “collateral,” in the language of the caselaw about routes of appeal, in no way implies that those interests are not centrally important to the child or that the motion judge’s manner of dealing with them is undeserving of careful review, in an appeal brought in the proper forum.
[27] We would add the following: in virtually any family law case where there are parenting issues before the court, interlocutory orders may have significant and long-lasting effects on children. Issues related to parenting schedules, interim relocation, and medical decision-making for example, may all have lasting implications. The same may be the case with certain support or property-related decisions. However, as seen above, in assessing whether an order is final or interlocutory for the purpose of appeal routes, “effects” are at the wrong end of the telescope. This court’s decision in Paulpillai instructs that it is the legal nature of the order and its relationship to the substantive issues in dispute that must guide the analysis.
[28] The order sought to be appealed is interlocutory and any appeal lies to the Divisional Court with leave.
|
