Claudia Falquez-Warkentin

The applicant wife brought an urgent motion without notice for a non-dissipation order freezing the respondent husband's assets and for the release of trust funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the request for a non-dissipation order, noting that most of the alleged deceptive financial conduct pre-dated a September 2019 settlement conference and there was no reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking relief.

The court set a timetable for the parties to file materials regarding the release of the trust funds, which will be determined in writing.

The applicant father sought to prevent the temporary relocation of the 22-month-old child to Italy with the respondent mother, and for temporary sole custody and an equal parenting schedule.

The respondent mother sought temporary sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to Italy for a new job opportunity.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, finding it not in the child's best interests on an interim basis due to the potential disruption to the child's relationship with the father and the lack of compelling financial benefit.

The court ordered a progressive parenting schedule for the father, including overnights, and joint decision-making pending trial.

The respondent (mother) sought spousal support from the applicant (father) following their divorce.

The central issue was whether the Ontario Court of Justice had jurisdiction to make a spousal support order, which required determining whether the parties were still spouses when the mother filed her claim.

The applicant obtained a divorce judgment on October 20, 2017, but the divorce did not take effect until November 20, 2017 (31 days later).

The mother filed her spousal support claim on November 10, 2017, while the parties were still technically married.

The court held that the parties remained spouses until the divorce took effect and therefore the court had jurisdiction to hear the spousal support claim.