Concurrent Jurisdiction

The importance of understanding and defining exactly what the term “concurrent jurisdiction" implies can be more confusing and misleading than one would have thought.

The case of Johanns v. Fulford is a perfect example of a party misinterpreting what it means for a court to have “concurrent jurisdiction."

In a messy custody and access conflict, the father attempted to change an order made in the Provincial Court by applying to the Ontario Court of Justice.

Justice Cohen of the Ontario Court of Justice finally settled any confusion moving forward on what the law means when it states that the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice have concurrent jurisdiction with respect to custody, access, and child support matters.

Justice Cohen put it simply:

“Concurrent jurisdiction means that, under provincial family law statutes, both courts can deal with issues of custody, access, and support, as courts of first instance. It does not mean that where a court has made a final order in an application, the motion to change can be brought in the other court. It does not mean that an order made in one court can be varied in the other court, where the other court acts as a court of first instance. It does not mean that a party can pursue actions for the same relief in both courts at once. It does not mean that a party can begin an application in one court and bring a motion in another court for the same relief. It does not meant that a party bringing a motion in an application can find the court with the most convenient date, and bring the motion in that court.”

To learn more about family law jurisdiction as well as the services provided by Krol & Krol, call 905.707.3370 today.