<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>COVID-19 Family Law Decisions &#8211; Di Battista Katz Grant Cobbina LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/articles/covid-19-family-law-decisions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:04:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Bozzo v. Cartagena, Court File No.: 1728/17</title>
		<link>https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/articles/covid-19-family-law-decisions/bozzo-v-cartagena-court-file-no-1728-17/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DKGC LLP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:12:33 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[COVID-19 Family Law Decisions]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/?p=1701</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[URGENT MOTION – CONTEMPT OF EXISTING ORDER FOR ACCESS Endorsement The case of Bozzo v. Cartagena came before the Superior Court of Justice in Hamilton on April 3, 2020, pursuant to the Notice to the Profession of the Chief Justice of Ontario, available at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/covid-19-suspension-fam/ (“Chief’s Notice”). The Respondent mother had allegedly unilaterally terminated the [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>EndorsementThe case of Bozzo v. Cartagena came before the Superior Court of Justice in Hamilton on April 3, 2020, pursuant to the Notice to the Profession of the Chief Justice of Ontario, available at https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/covid-19-suspension-fam/ (“Chief’s Notice”).The Respondent mother had allegedly unilaterally terminated the Applicant father’s access. The father brought a contempt…</p>
<p><a href="https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/articles/covid-19-family-law-decisions/bozzo-v-cartagena-court-file-no-1728-17/" rel="nofollow">Source</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guerin v. Guerin, 2020 ONSC 2016</title>
		<link>https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/articles/covid-19-family-law-decisions/guerin-v-guerin-2020-onsc-2016/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DKGC LLP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:08:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[COVID-19 Family Law Decisions]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/?p=1698</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[MOTION FOR EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF MATRIMONIAL HOME AND ACCESS BY ELECTRONIC MEANS Source: CanLII In the recent case of Guerin v. Guerin, the Court dealt with a urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and that the contact between the Father and children be by video chat/telephone. The Court granted the Mother’s request [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Source: CanLIIIn the recent case of Guerin v. Guerin, the Court dealt with a urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and that the contact between the Father and children be by video chat/telephone. The Court granted the Mother’s request to have exclusive possession of the home and that the Father’s access to the children be by electronic means temporarily.Prior to the order…</p>
<p><a href="https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/articles/covid-19-family-law-decisions/guerin-v-guerin-2020-onsc-2016/" rel="nofollow">Source</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Zee v. Quon, SCJ Court File No: FS-16-412436</title>
		<link>https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/articles/covid-19-family-law-decisions/zee-v-quon-scj-court-file-no-fs-16-412436/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DKGC LLP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:01:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[COVID-19 Family Law Decisions]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/?p=1692</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[URGENT MOTION – PARENTING AND RESTRAINING ORDER – MOTHER WORKING IN HEALTH CARE Endorsement In this case, the Applicant Mother brought an urgent motion regarding parenting and a restraining order prohibiting the Father from contacting her employer after he contacted her supervisor directly. The Mother is a health care professional working at Sunnybrook Hospital and the [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>EndorsementIn this case, the Applicant Mother brought an urgent motion regarding parenting and a restraining order prohibiting the Father from contacting her employer after he contacted her supervisor directly.The Mother is a health care professional working at Sunnybrook Hospital and the Respondent Father refused to comply with an existing order for equal time with the parties’ youngest child.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/articles/covid-19-family-law-decisions/zee-v-quon-scj-court-file-no-fs-16-412436/" rel="nofollow">Source</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>B-M. v. M.M., 2020 ONSC 1958</title>
		<link>https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/articles/covid-19-family-law-decisions/bm-v-mm-2020-onsc-1958/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DKGC LLP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2020 20:56:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[COVID-19 Family Law Decisions]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/?p=1688</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[CASE CONFERENCE ENDORSEMENT RE:  URGENCY – PARENTING AND SUPPORT Source: AFCC Ontario In this decision, a conference was conducted by telephone by the Honourable Justice Kiteley following service of motion materials by the Applicant Mother. At issue was whether a motion regarding parenting, child and spousal support was urgent within the meaning of the Chief [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Source: AFCC OntarioIn this decision, a conference was conducted by telephone by the Honourable Justice Kiteley following service of motion materials by the Applicant Mother.At issue was whether a motion regarding parenting, child and spousal support was urgent within the meaning of the Chief Justice in the Notice to the Profession announcing the suspension of regular court operations and whether…</p>
<p><a href="https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/articles/covid-19-family-law-decisions/bm-v-mm-2020-onsc-1958/" rel="nofollow">Source</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ribeiro v. Wright, 2020 CarswellOnt 4049</title>
		<link>https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/articles/covid-19-family-law-decisions/ribeiro-v-wright-2020-carswellont-4049/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DKGC LLP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2020 20:23:20 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[COVID-19 Family Law Decisions]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/?p=1673</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[TRIAGE JUDGE ENDORSEMENT &#8211; COVID-19 PROTOCOLS, PARENTING AND URGENCY Source: CanLII   In Ribeiro v. Wright, 2020 CarswellOnt 4090 (S.C.J.), the mother brought a motion to suspend the father’s parenting time in light of COVID-19.  At the time the motion was brought, the Court’s regular operations were suspended, and only urgent motions were permitted to be heard.  [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Source: CanLII In Ribeiro v. Wright, 2020 CarswellOnt 4090 (S.C.J.), the mother brought a motion to suspend the father’s parenting time in light of COVID-19. At the time the motion was brought, the Court’s regular operations were suspended, and only urgent motions were permitted to be heard. This is the first Endorsement released with respect to urgent matters since COVID-19 measures were put in…</p>
<p><a href="https://www.dkgcfamilylaw.com/articles/covid-19-family-law-decisions/ribeiro-v-wright-2020-carswellont-4049/" rel="nofollow">Source</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
