Harold Niman

A father brought an application under the Children’s Law Reform Act seeking shared custody of a newborn child born in California after the mother travelled there late in pregnancy.

The primary issue on the motion was whether Ontario had jurisdiction over custody despite the child never residing in Ontario.

The court found that both parents were habitually resident in Ontario before the mother travelled to California and that the mother’s intention to relocate permanently to California arose only after the child’s birth.

Invoking the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction to address a gap in the statutory definition of habitual residence, the court held that Ontario had jurisdiction to determine custody.

The court also held that the respondent’s earlier Notice of Constitutional Question constituted attornment to the jurisdiction of the Ontario court.

In a family proceeding joined with a related civil action, the responding spouse brought a motion seeking orders compelling the applicant spouse to answer refusals and satisfy undertakings arising from examinations for discovery.

The disputed questions concerned financial disclosure relating to a loan agreement for home renovations and the alleged ownership of shares in a start‑up pharmaceutical company through the applicant or a related corporation.

The court held that further financial disclosure concerning the applicant’s historical assets was not warranted beyond potentially accessible documents relied upon by the accountant, subject to cost reimbursement.

However, disclosure relating to corporate shareholdings and documents connected to the alleged share interest claim was found relevant and ordered to be produced.

Certain undertakings and refusals relating to the corporate issue were ordered satisfied within 30 days.

The responding spouse sought to strike the applicant spouse’s family law application for failure to comply with a prior order requiring monthly undifferentiated payments and costs following a trial adjournment granted at the applicant’s request.

The applicant acknowledged the breach and proposed partial compliance through RRSP deregistration and payment from trust funds held by counsel, arguing financial hardship and business failure.

The court declined to reconsider the prior order or permit satisfaction of the payments from trust funds, noting insufficient evidence to justify revisiting the earlier ruling and ongoing credibility concerns.

Instead of immediately striking the application, the court adjourned the motion and ordered extensive financial disclosure, including business documentation, banking records, passport records, and updated financial statements.

The applicant was required in the interim to pay funds realized from the RRSP deregistration to the respondent’s counsel pending further determination.

Following a family law motion relating largely to support and financial disclosure, the applicant sought full indemnity costs of $14,774.19 and requested that a substantial portion be enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The court found the applicant had been largely successful and that the respondent had failed to provide disclosure and comply with a prior consent order.

Although the respondent argued that no settlement offer had been made, that some disclosure had been provided voluntarily, and that the applicant was not entirely successful, the court held that the absence of an offer did not preclude full indemnity costs.

The court also questioned the necessity of two counsel and considered the tax implications of support-related costs under Rule 24.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 plus HST and disbursements.

The appellant appealed a Court of Appeal decision that set aside a contempt order against the respondent.

The respondent had been found in contempt for failing to secure his support obligations with an irrevocable letter of credit and to post security for costs.

The Court of Appeal had held that the motions judge lacked jurisdiction under Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the orders were for the 'payment of money'.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting appellate judge that neither security order amounted to an order for the payment of money, and reinstated the contempt order.