Only Consent Orders at Case Conference?

It's been a little while since I've seen this, but it frustrates me every time I read someone say "only consent orders are possible at a case conference or before a trial". This is just patently false. Some types of orders are avoided at the conference level where the quality and amount of evidence is often lacking for a variety of legitimate reasons, but those powers are there. And generally retroactive support orders going back more than say a month is not common, but it absolutely is in the power of the court to do so. S.34(1) of the Family Law Act specifies the types of orders that can be made both on a final basis and on a temporary basis. So it can happen at any time: Powers of court

1. In an application under section 33, the court may make an interim or final order,

   1. requiring that an amount be paid periodically, whether annually or otherwise and whether for an indefinite or limited period, or until the happening of a specified event;

   2. requiring that a lump sum be paid or held in trust;

   3. requiring that property be transferred to or in trust for or vested in the dependent, whether absolutely, for life or for a term of years;

   4. respecting any matter authorized to be ordered under clause 24 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) (matrimonial home);

   5. requiring that some or all of the money payable under the order be paid into court or to another appropriate person or agency for the dependent's benefit;

   6. requiring that support be paid in respect of any period before the date of the order;

   7. requiring payment to an agency referred to in subsection 33 (3) of an amount in reimbursement for a benefit or assistance referred to in that subsection, including a benefit or assistance provided before the date of the order;

   8. requiring payment of expenses in respect of a child’s prenatal care and birth;

   9. requiring that a spouse who has a policy of life insurance as defined under the Insurance Act designate the other spouse or a child as the beneficiary irrevocably;

   10. requiring that a spouse who has an interest in a pension plan or other benefit plan designate the other spouse or a child as beneficiary under the plan and not change that designation; and

   11. requiring the securing of payment under the order, by a charge on property or otherwise.

In addition, there are some orders that a judge can make at a case conference on their own initiative without even being asked (this is often referred to as Sua Sponte). This is specified in the FLR 17(7.1), and contain things like ordering financial disclosures, and attend mediation. There are additional powers specified in the FLR at 17(8): (8) At a case conference, settlement conference or trial management conference the judge may, if it is appropriate to do so,

(a) make an order for document disclosure (rule 19), questioning (rule 20) or filing of summaries of argument on a motion, set the times for events in the case or give directions for the next step or steps in the case;

(a.0.1) make an order about expert opinion evidence, including,

(i) the engagement of an expert by or for one or more parties,

(ii) the use of expert opinion evidence in a case, or

(iii) the provision, service or filing of experts’ reports or written opinions;

(a.1) make an order requiring the parties to file a trial management endorsement or trial scheduling endorsement in a form determined by the court;

(b) make an order requiring one or more parties to attend,

(i) a mandatory information program,

(ii) a case conference or settlement conference conducted by a person named under subrule (9).

(iii) an intake meeting with a court-affiliated mediation service, or

(iv) a program offered through any other available community service or resource;

(b.1) if notice has been served, make a final order or any temporary order, including any of the following temporary orders to facilitate the preservation of the rights of the parties until a further agreement or order is made:

(i) an order relating to the designation of beneficiaries under a policy of life insurance, registered retirement savings plan, trust, pension, annuity or a similar financial instrument,

(ii) an order preserving assets generally or particularly,

(iii) an order prohibiting the concealment or destruction of documents or property,

(iv) an order requiring an accounting of funds under the control of one of the parties,

(v) an order preserving the health and medical insurance coverage for one of the parties and the children of the relationship, and

(vi) an order continuing the payment of periodic amounts required to preserve an asset or a benefit to one of the parties and the children;

(c) make an unopposed order or an order on consent; and

(d) on consent, refer any issue for alternative dispute resolution.

***

Do not be lulled into a false sense of complacency with the false notion that nothing can happen before trial without your consent. It's just not true. Many things in like are coercive in nature and could care less about your consent, parenting, law enforcement, and family court.

I added emphasis to b.1. See that? If notice has been given, ANY temporary order. This was further upheld in Laxmikantha v. Adapa, 2023 ONSC 7151, where Applicant was requesting sole decision making and spousal support. The Judge in that matter concluded in para 17:

It therefore follows that the case conference judge is authorized to grant any temporary orders, if satisfied that the other party has been given due notice.

Once you subject yourselves to the jurisdiction of the court, the power rests in a judges hands, not yours.