Alison Dennis

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support from the respondent husband.

The court addressed the issues of commencement date and quantum of support, finding the wife's evidence more credible than the husband's, particularly regarding his income and extensive business interests.

Due to the husband's lack of transparent financial disclosure and the family's high-end lifestyle, the court imputed a significantly higher income to the husband than he declared and ordered him to pay interim spousal support.

The parties were divorced in Connecticut, where a final order dealt with custody and child support.

The father subsequently obtained an order from the Connecticut court permitting him to relocate with the children to Ontario.

After moving, the father commenced an application in Ontario seeking to supersede the Connecticut orders regarding custody, access, and child support.

The mother brought a motion to stay the Ontario proceeding, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that Connecticut was the more convenient forum.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act and the Family Law Act, and that Ontario was the forum conveniens given the children's habitual residence and the location of current evidence.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased access to the parties' child pending the completion of a section 30 assessment.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, relying on a previous consent order that maintained the current schedule until the assessment was completed, and citing concerns about the father's past alcohol use.

The court found that while the father had addressed the alcohol concerns, a significant change to the schedule was not warranted before the assessment.

However, the court partially granted the motion by modifying the access schedule to reduce the number of transitions, which was deemed to be in the child's best interests.