Amy A. Green

The respondent on a motion to change brought an interim motion seeking retroactive child support from 2020 through 2025 and an order compelling the applicant father to finalize the divorce.

The court held that despite the general discouragement of interim motions within motions to change, the threshold was met where the material facts regarding the child's residence and the parties' incomes were largely undisputed.

Interim child support orders were made for 2021 through 2025 based on Line 15000 incomes, without prejudice to the final hearing.

The court also ordered the father to proceed with the divorce within 30 days, finding no legal disadvantage warranting delay and rejecting the argument that the divorce should await resolution of overpayment claims.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order, seeking sole decision-making responsibility and the imputation of income to the respondent for child support purposes.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking sole decision-making responsibility and a reduction in child support due to a change in employment.

The court dismissed both parties' requests to change decision-making responsibility, finding no material change in circumstances despite their high-conflict relationship.

The court declined to impute income to the respondent, finding her underemployment was justified by reasonable educational needs, but adjusted child support based on her current and anticipated income.

The appellant mother removed her two children from Egypt to Ontario and sought custody under the Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA).

The trial judge declined jurisdiction, finding the mother had attorned to the Egyptian courts and should not be rewarded for abducting the children.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence of the children's psychological distress and allowed the appeal.

The Court held the trial judge erred in his approach to jurisdiction under ss. 22 and 23 of the CLRA, noting that the best interests of the children must prevail over discouraging abduction when there is a risk of serious harm.

The Ontario court assumed jurisdiction and granted interim custody to the mother.

In a family law motion, the applicant sought findings of contempt relating to alleged breaches of prior court orders concerning property retrieval, vehicle maintenance obligations, and parenting exchange arrangements.

The court found the respondent in contempt for deliberately withholding certain listed household items contrary to a prior order requiring their surrender, but declined to find contempt regarding alleged failure to service a vehicle because the order was ambiguous and primarily required payment of operating expenses.

The court imposed a reduced monetary fine and directed the parties to arrange completion of the property transfer.

Requests to vary parenting transfer arrangements and for reimbursement of vehicle maintenance costs were dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to stay an order requiring her to return her two children to Egypt pending her appeal of a custody decision.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

Applying the RJR-Macdonald test, the Court of Appeal granted the stay, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the father was actually exercising custody rights under Article 13 of the Hague Convention when the children were removed.

The court also found irreparable harm to the children if their school year was disrupted, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The father's cross-motion for security for costs was dismissed.