Brigitta Tseitlin

The moving party sought leave to appeal a motion decision dismissing his request to strike portions of an application dealing with child support.

The application was brought after a French court had issued a final child support order concerning children now residing in Ontario.

The motion judge had concluded Ontario had jurisdiction to address child support and that Ontario was the most appropriate forum.

On the leave motion, the court considered conflicting authorities regarding whether Ontario courts may entertain an originating application for child support where a valid foreign order already exists.

Finding an apparent conflict between prior decisions concerning jurisdiction under s. 33 of the Family Law Act, the court held that the legal issue was unsettled and granted leave to appeal.

The appellant transferred over $780,000 to an offshore account after a non-dissipation order was made in a matrimonial proceeding, claiming it was to repay a legitimate pre-separation debt.

The motion judge found the appellant in contempt.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the contempt finding, holding that the motion judge erred by failing to make specific findings regarding the legitimacy of the debt and its impact on the equalization of net family property.

The respondent was granted liberty to bring a renewed motion for contempt where these issues could be properly determined.

In a family law motion, the moving party sought reinstatement of an existing parenting arrangement after the other parent unilaterally retained the child and refused to follow the court-ordered residential schedule.

Evidence indicated escalating conflict, the child’s refusal to return to the moving party’s residence, and concerning conduct by the responding parent, including hostility toward the moving party and disregard for court authority.

The court found that the responding parent’s behaviour undermined the child’s welfare and demonstrated an inability to participate in joint decision‑making.

Exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, the court varied the prior joint custody order to grant the moving party interim sole custody while maintaining the existing residential schedule.

The matter was urgently referred to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to investigate and provide recommendations.

Following an urgent family law motion regarding temporary custody and parenting arrangements, the court was required to determine costs after the parties left without addressing the issue.

The respondent father sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully obtaining a nesting arrangement for the children and related financial orders.

The court found that the respondent achieved substantial success on the motion and that the applicant mother had engaged in unreasonable conduct by unilaterally removing the children from the matrimonial home and seeking to restrict the father’s parenting time.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that costs should exceed partial indemnity due to the applicant’s conduct.

Costs were therefore awarded to the respondent.