Garlow v. Lasri: The Line Between Emergency and Urgent Family Motions

“This shouldn’t be so complicated.” — Justice Alex Pazaratz, Garlow v. Lasri

In Garlow v. Lasri (2025 ONSC 6216), Justice Pazaratz delivers a timely reminder that the difference between an emergency and an urgent motion isn’t semantic — it’s procedural fairness in action. The decision clarifies how counsel should approach pre-conference motions under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules and critiques the confusion created by the new “Emergency Motion Request Form.”

Heard on November 4, 2025, this decision offers practical guidance for lawyers managing high-pressure parenting disputes where every hour feels urgent — but not every motion qualifies as an emergency.

Facts and Procedural History

• The Applicant father filed an Application on August 29, 2025, seeking decision-making responsibility and parenting time for his five-year-old son.
• His Form 35.1 Affidavit alleged that the mother withheld the child, conditioned access on financial demands, and made “unrealistic accusations.” He disclosed 18 criminal charges — including six counts of disobeying a court order — without explanation.
• The father retained counsel on October 7, 2025.
• On November 4, 2025, the father’s lawyer delivered an Emergency Motion Request Form, Notice of Motion, and affidavit materials at lunchtime; the mother was served by email one hour earlier.
• On the new “Emergency Motion Request Form”, the father selected “Urgent before Case Conference Motion,” citing the next available conference date in March 2026 and the mother’s unfiled Answer.
• His affidavit described intermittent denials of parenting time and included an email where the mother proposed mediation.

Issues

1. Should the court dispense with the case-conference requirement under Rule 14(4.2)?
2. Did the Emergency Motion Request Form process ensure procedural fairness where only one party was effectively heard?
3. Did the father’s evidence justify urgent, pre-conference relief?

The Court’s Analysis

Rule 14(4) and (4.2): The Gatekeeping Function

Rule 14(4) prohibits motions on substantive issues before a case conference, unless urgency, hardship, or interests of justice justify early intervention. The purpose, reaffirmed in Spiegel v. Zigelstein 2015 CanLII 80412 (Div Ct); Rosen v. Rosen, 2005 CanLII 480 (ON SC); Alves v. Galloway, 2023 ONSC 7209 (SCJ), is to reduce unnecessary interim motions.

Courts have recognized only limited categories of genuine urgency — abduction, threats of harm, or dire financial distress (Rosen; Gould v. Jackman, 2021 ONSC 4529 (SCJ)). Justice Kurz’s four-part test in Thomas v. Wohleber, 2020 ONSC 1965, remains the benchmark:

1. The concern must be immediate.
2. It must be serious, affecting health, safety, or economic well-being.
3. It must be definite and material, not speculative.
4. It must be clearly particularized in evidence.

In parenting disputes, urgency wanes with delay. A sudden suspension of access may justify intervention, but waiting “many weeks or even months” erodes the claim (Reitzel v. Reitzel, 2020 ONSC 1977). Parties cannot create crises through procrastination (Chase v. Chase, 2020 ONSC 5083).

Procedural Fairness and the Problem with the New Form

Justice Pazaratz identified a central flaw with the Emergency Motion Request Form. It invites judges to make pivotal Rule 14(4.2) decisions “based solely on one side of the story”. Because the mother was served only an hour before materials were reviewed, the request was effectively ex parte.

The judge emphasized that determining whether a motion should proceed before a case conference is a formal judicial act requiring both parties’ participation, except for true ex parte emergencies under Rule 14(12).

The current process, he warned, risks duplication and unfairness. Once a judge dispenses with a conference based on incomplete evidence, the other party must resort to Rule 25(19) to set aside the order — “just more needless work for everyone”.

The solution and guidance is straightforward:

“This shouldn’t be so complicated.

a. There’s a difference between “emergency” and “urgent”.

b. If it’s truly an emergency, proceed ex parte if you have to, pursuant to Rule 14(12).

c. If it’s urgent but it can wait a few days (which most things can), serve a motion returnable in court on a specific date and time; characterize it as “urgent” if necessary; seek an abridgement of time if necessary; and specify that you’re seeking pre-case conference relief. A judge will then be able to decide, after hearing both sides.”

Incomplete and Misleading Evidence

A review of the file revealed that the father’s new affidavit omitted his 18 pending criminal charges, including those for disobeying a court order. He also offered no detail on the mother’s stated “safety concerns”. Given that both parties had earlier agreed on a case-conference process, this last-minute motion raised “behind her back” fairness issues.

Outcome

The court dismissed the “Urgent before Case Conference” motion and directed the father to serve a regular motion, returnable on the Hamilton Wednesday list. Justice Pazaratz also suggested that the parties explore mediation.

Commentary and Significance

Garlow marks a recalibration of how Ontario courts will treat pre-conference motions. Justice Pazaratz restores procedural discipline by re-establishing that:

• “Emergency” motions belong under Rule 14(12) and may proceed ex parte only when immediate danger justifies it.
• “Urgent” motions proceed under Rule 14(4.2), almost always with notice.
• The mere existence of a distant case-conference date does not justify bypassing Rule 14(4).

The judgment also exposes the systemic risk of administrative shortcuts. Well-intentioned “emergency” forms cannot replace judicial consideration. For practitioners, the message is simple: use the Rules as written.

Practice Tips

1. Match the relief to the rule. Reserve Rule 14(12) for true emergencies; use Rule 14(4.2) for urgent matters that can withstand brief notice.
2. Apply the Wohleber test. Detail immediacy, seriousness, materiality, and evidence. Avoid conclusory statements.
3. Act promptly. Delay undermines urgency and credibility.
4. Provide meaningful notice. Same-day service is effectively ex parte; specify a clear return date.
5. Disclose completely. Omit nothing relevant — especially pending charges or safety allegations.
6. Respect agreed pathways. If parties consented to await a case conference, seek the court’s direction before deviating.
7. Explore short-term solutions. Mediation or interim arrangements may address pressing issues faster than litigation.

Strengthened Practice Implementation

Justice Pazaratz’s endorsement is also a call for firms to update internal templates and checklists so that procedure aligns with the Rules rather than the form’s ambiguity.

1. Differentiate Emergency and Urgent Templates

• Emergency (Rule 14(12)): Require facts showing imminent danger or removal and confirmation that notice is impossible. Add a reminder that any ex parte order must return within 14 days.
• Urgent (Rule 14(4.2)): Include prompts for the Thomas v. Wohleber test and whether the issue can await a conference.

2. Add “Status-Quo Timing” Fields

Capture the date of last parenting denial or change to demonstrate immediacy and discourage “manufactured” urgency .

3. Counsel Certification Checklist

Confirm that:

• An early case-conference date was sought or unavailable (Rosen v. Rosen).
• Settlement or mediation attempts were made.
• Proper notice and return date were provided.
• The correct Rule 14 pathway is clearly identified.

4. Update Affidavit Precedents

Affidavits should prompt for specific Wohleber particulars, the timing of last status-quo changes, and any alternate-resolution attempts.

These administrative refinements — distinguishing Rule 14(12) from 14(4.2), documenting Wohleber criteria, and recording timing data — may be the most enduring practical legacy of Garlow v. Lasri.

Conclusion

Garlow v. Lasri is a procedural checkpoint for the family bar. Justice Pazaratz restores the hierarchy between Rules 14(12) and 14(4.2) and reminds counsel that good intentions do not excuse bad process.

For Ontario practitioners, the takeaway is as practical as it is principled: When in doubt, serve the motion, give notice, and let both sides be heard.

Let’s continue to elevate the practice of family law in Ontario!

Connect with us on LinkedIn.

Legal Disclaimer: See Privacy Policy

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Consult with a qualified family law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog.