Gavin Alec Joe Marchak

The applicant brought a motion to find the respondent in contempt of a March 2025 order requiring him to provide an updated Financial Statement including assets in both Canada and India.

The respondent argued the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over his Indian assets and provided only partial disclosure.

The court applied the Carter framework and found the respondent in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the order was clear, he had actual knowledge of it, and he intentionally failed to comply.

The respondent was given until June 30, 2026, to purge his contempt before further remedies would be considered.

The applicant mother brought an interim motion seeking unsupervised parenting time with her 16-year-old child and access to the child's health and education records, as part of a broader motion to change a 2021 final order.

The 2021 order granted the respondent father sole decision-making and primary care, required supervised parenting time at the father's discretion, and included a restraining order against the mother.

The court amended the restraining order to permit contact between the mother and child, and communication between the parents via a third party.

However, the court dismissed the mother's requests for access to records and unsupervised parenting time, finding insufficient evidence to alter the status quo on an interim basis.

The court ordered that any communication and supervised parenting time be at the discretion of the 16-year-old child.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the family law application for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that matrimonial issues were being litigated in Indian courts.

The respondent also sought to vary or set aside a restraint order on his Canadian assets, requesting either full release or access to $100,000 for living expenses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the application could not be dismissed as issues remained within the court's jurisdiction, including division of Canadian assets and enforcement of interim child support.

The restraint order was maintained due to insufficient evidence regarding the respondent's need for funds and his failure to disclose Indian assets as ordered.

The plaintiff brought a motion for the interim preservation of a 1963 Pontiac Parisienne, alleging he purchased it from the defendant who subsequently resiled from the agreement.

The defendant sought an adjournment to challenge the court's jurisdiction, as the sale occurred in Illinois.

The court granted an interim interim preservation order, finding a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the unique vintage vehicle.

The order was made without prejudice to the defendant's right to bring a jurisdictional motion, and the plaintiff was required to pay the balance of the purchase price into court.