A. Watkins

The applicant, Tom, sought an order for the parties' 14-year-old child, Scarlet, to live with him in the United Kingdom and attend school there.

The respondent, Marie, opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion for interim child and spousal support, and s. 7 expenses.

The court dismissed Tom's motion, finding it was not in Scarlet's best interests to be uprooted from her established home and school in Toronto.

The court granted Marie's request for interim child and spousal support, and s. 7 expenses, based on the parties' 2016 incomes.

Marie was granted interim custody with final decision-making authority.

The applicant sought an interim order for the recovery of personal property (tobacco kilns and bins) from the respondent, his former business partner's spouse, located on a Six Nations Reserve.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish "substantial grounds" for ownership or unlawful detention of the property, and that granting the order would effectively nullify the respondent's potential rights before trial, contrary to the mandatory security provisions of Rule 44.04(1).