Carina Joyce Chan

The respondent moved to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and to set aside ex parte orders from 2018 and 2019.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the ex parte orders, finding it was too late given the years of litigation abroad under the Hague Convention.

Regarding jurisdiction, the court found Ontario clearly had jurisdiction as the children were habitually resident there.

The court declined to rule on forum non conveniens (s. 25 CLRA) as premature, pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal in Morocco concerning the children's return, noting concerns about the UAE court's custody decision (gender bias, lack of best interests consideration, and recognition of Talaq divorces).

The applicant brought an urgent motion prior to a case conference seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim child support, and interim spousal support.

The respondent was in default but appeared and consented to exclusive possession on the condition he not pay support.

The court granted the applicant leave to proceed due to urgency, as she and the child were facing eviction.

The court ordered exclusive possession of the home to the applicant, with the respondent to pay all carrying costs in lieu of interim spousal support.

The respondent was also ordered to clean the home, pay Table child support of $1,006 per month, and contribute to section 7 expenses.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding child support.

The applicant father sought to reduce his child support obligation after losing his job, while the respondent mother sought to enforce the terms of their separation agreement, which calculated support based on the prior year's income.

The court found that the applicant's job loss constituted a material change in circumstances and temporarily varied the agreement to base ongoing support on his current estimated income.

However, the court also ordered the applicant to pay $34,405 in retroactive child support to account for significant increases in his income in 2019 and 2020 that had not been properly adjusted under the agreement.

The moving party father brought a motion to strike a single sentence from the responding party mother's Reply, arguing it was inflammatory.

The sentence alleged that the father refused to provide funds for a taxi or ride-share for access exchanges during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court reviewed the correspondence between counsel and found the sentence was accurate and relevant to the mother's claim for child and spousal support.

The motion to strike was dismissed, and costs of $6,500 were awarded to the mother.

The Applicant father sought an urgent motion to enforce a shared parenting schedule for his two children, which the Respondent mother had unilaterally suspended for five weeks due to her immunocompromised status and concerns about COVID-19 exposure.

The court applied principles from Ribeiro v Wright, emphasizing children's best interests and the need for specific evidence of non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

The court found the mother's concerns largely overstated and unsupported, and her approach self-centred and undermining of the father-child relationship.

The motion was granted, restoring parenting time to the father with specific COVID-19 safety protocols.