Allan T. Hirsch

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) brought a motion to pay the net proceeds from a power of sale of a property into court.

The defendant, Guy Lafond, and his former partner, Sherri Van de Hoef, along with the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), claimed entitlement to these funds, primarily for child support arrears.

The court determined the amounts owed to each party and established the priority of claims, with FRO and Ms. Van de Hoef's claims (including costs) taking precedence over RBC's remaining claim.

Due to Mr. Lafond's conduct in disputing the claims and causing adjournments without taking suggested steps, he was ordered to pay the costs of the other parties.

The funds in court were insufficient to fully satisfy all claims, leaving Mr. Lafond personally liable for the deficiency owed to RBC.

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the applicant father's pleadings or suspend the trial due to his failure to comply with a temporary order requiring him to pay child support, spousal support, and interim disbursements.

The father, who resides in Egypt, had accumulated over $58,000 in arrears and made no payments.

The court found the father's non-compliance to be willful and deliberate, noting he had been imputed an income of $250,000.

The court ordered the trial adjourned until the father demonstrates substantial compliance with the temporary order, and directed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to provide an updated Voice of the Child Report regarding access.

The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary child support, spousal support, and an interim disbursement.

The applicant father had sought to decline jurisdiction and return the children to Egypt, but his application was adjourned.

The court found it had jurisdiction to order interim child support under the Family Law Act, as the Egyptian divorce did not address it and the children had a substantial connection to Ontario.

The court also found it had jurisdiction for spousal support because the Egyptian divorce was not recognized under the Divorce Act.

The court imputed an annual income of $250,000 to the father due to voluntary underemployment and lack of financial disclosure.

An interim disbursement of $4,000 was ordered for the mother's expert witness fees, applying the less stringent family law criteria for advance costs.

This decision addresses costs following an application under the Hague Convention for the return of two children to Hong Kong.

The applicant, Mr. Habimana, was successful in obtaining an order for the children's return, as the respondent, Ms. Mukundwa, failed to establish a risk of harm.

The court found Ms. Mukundwa's conduct in removing the children to be unreasonable.

Neither party's offers to settle triggered automatic cost rules.

Considering the complexity, importance of the issues, and the parties' conduct, the court awarded Mr. Habimana $25,000 in costs, inclusive of legal fees incurred in Hong Kong and Canada, and transportation costs for the children and their mother's return.

The applicant father sought the return of his two sons to Hong Kong under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The respondent mother contested, raising the Article 13(b) defense of grave risk of harm and an intolerable situation due to alleged spousal abuse and uncertain immigration status.

The court found that the mother did not meet the high threshold for the grave risk defense, noting no evidence of physical or psychological abuse of the children and that Hong Kong courts could address family law issues.

The court ordered the children's forthwith return to Hong Kong, subject to several undertakings by the father to ensure the mother and children's safe return and stability.

The applicant sought to stay the enforcement of child support until his Motion to Change was determined.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking to strike the applicant's pleadings due to his non-payment of two previous cost orders.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding he had the ability to pay costs but was refusing to do so, thereby attempting to circumvent prior court orders.

The court stayed the applicant's Motion to Change proceedings until all outstanding costs were paid in full, including those awarded in this motion.

The respondent was granted leave to bring a future motion to strike the applicant's pleadings if costs remained unpaid by a specified date.

Costs for this motion were awarded to the respondent and the Family Responsibility Office.

The father brought a motion to change previous orders regarding child support, spousal support, and access.

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to his failure to comply with multiple previous court orders, including failing to pay over $60,000 in support arrears and over $50,000 in an equalization payment.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) brought a motion to enforce the support arrears.

The court granted the mother's motion to strike, finding the father had the means to pay but chose not to, and prohibited him from bringing further motions to change without leave until all arrears and costs are paid.

The court also granted the FRO's motion, ordering the father to pay $61,292.68 in arrears within 30 days and $20,000 as security within 45 days, failing which the FRO could seek his committal.

The Family Responsibility Office brought a motion for a Warrant of Committal against the respondent for failing to pay child support arrears.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance but argued that he was unemployed, the child now resided with him, and he was financially supporting the child's athletic pursuits.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the previous default order and suspended the issuance of the warrant, ordering the respondent to file a motion to change the support order.

Following the dismissal of the father's Hague Convention application for the return of the children, the successful mother sought costs of $9,000.

The father opposed, arguing for no costs or $2,500, citing his own legal fees and a post-hearing settlement.

The court noted the mother's offer to settle was identical to the final order and the father provided no evidence of financial inability to pay.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $7,000.

The applicant father sought the return of the children to Seattle, Washington, under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful removal or retention in Ottawa, Ontario, after he was denied entry to Canada due to a criminal record.

The respondent mother argued that the children's relocation to Ottawa was mutually agreed upon and their habitual residence had changed.

The court found that the parents had a joint settled intention to move the children to Ottawa, and the father's consent was not vitiated by deceit or misrepresentation.

The application for the return of the children was dismissed.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought a warrant of committal against a support payor for failing to comply with a final default hearing order requiring payment of substantial spousal support arrears and costs.

The arrears exceeded $899,000 at the time of the motion.

The court considered whether the payor had demonstrated a material change in circumstances since the prior default hearing sufficient to explain his non-payment under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The respondent argued inability to pay based on caregiving responsibilities for his elderly mother, alleged issues with court file documentation, unsuccessful attempts to vary support, and a rejected settlement proposal involving his RRSP.

The court rejected these explanations, found no material change in circumstances, and concluded the respondent had wilfully disregarded court orders.

A warrant of committal was granted with intermittent incarceration to encourage compliance with the support obligations.