Heather Puchala

The self-represented moving party sought review of a motion judge's decision dismissing his motion to extend time to appeal a Superior Court order that had itself declined to extend time for him to appeal a default order in a support enforcement proceeding.

The panel applied the deferential standard requiring an error in law or misapprehension of material evidence before intervening.

Finding no such error, the panel upheld the motion judge's refusal of the extension, which was based on the proposed appeal being manifestly without merit and an abuse of process.

The panel noted that concerns regarding incarceration, support payment history, and arrears calculation had been previously decided and upheld on appeal, and could not be addressed through the proposed appeal in the context of a support enforcement proceeding.

The moving party sought an extension of time in family support enforcement proceedings after repeated prior litigation.

Applying extension criteria, the court found no merit and characterized the proposed appeal as another collateral attack on long-settled support issues, amounting to abuse of process.

The appellant, Brian Kumar, brought a second appeal seeking to set aside a default order for support arrears, arguing that a Mareva injunction impacted his ability to pay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the lower courts' consideration of the Mareva injunction.

Both the original hearing judge and the first appeal judge had expressly considered its impact, and the appellant had failed to rebut the statutory presumption regarding his ability to pay.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

This appeal concerned the jurisdiction of an Ontario court to make a child support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 (ISO Act) when a foreign support order from Finland already existed, but its registration in Ontario had been set aside due to the payor's fraudulent misrepresentations.

The Superior Court had quashed the Ontario Court of Justice's order for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that two valid support orders could not coexist.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 21 of the ISO Act explicitly grants Ontario courts jurisdiction to hear a new support application in such circumstances, especially given the payor's deceptive conduct.

The court emphasized the ISO Act's purpose of facilitating support enforcement and dismissed concerns about potential double recovery.

The appellant father appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order requiring him to pay ongoing child support and arrears.

The parties were divorced in Finland, where a valid child support order was previously made.

The father had abducted the children to Morocco but they were later returned to Finland.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal and quashed the Ontario child support order, finding that under the Cheng v. Liu framework, the Finnish court had exclusive jurisdiction over child support because it granted the divorce and issued the initial support order.

The court noted the father's history of misleading authorities but held that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction to create a competing child support order.

A default hearing concerning enforcement of child and spousal support orders made by Justice Paisley in 2012 and 2013.

The payor, Douglas Roche, accumulated arrears of over $1.1 million over approximately four years and four months.

The Family Responsibility Office sought a final default order requiring payment of $12,920 in arrears plus $20,740 per month in ongoing support, with a 30-day jail term for default.

The payor argued inability to pay due to a downturn in his investment banking business and claimed the original orders were based on anomalously high income.

The court found the payor had partially rebutted the presumption of ability to pay but imposed a final order requiring payment of $12,920 plus $5,000 per month with a 30-day jail term for default, finding the FRO's requested amount would be punitive given the payor's demonstrated income.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside the registration of a child support order made by a Polish court.

The order had been obtained by the applicant without notice to the respondent while he was in Ontario with a custody order.

The court found all three grounds for setting aside the registration were satisfied: the respondent lacked proper notice and opportunity to be heard, the order was contrary to public policy given the applicant's abduction of the child and contempt of Ontario court orders, and the Polish court lacked jurisdiction.

The deemed application for child support was dismissed, and the applicant was prohibited from commencing further proceedings in Ontario without purging her contempt or obtaining leave of court.

Costs were awarded on a full recovery basis due to the applicant's bad faith conduct.

The Ontario Superior Court was asked to confirm a provisional order from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench that significantly reduced child and spousal support arrears owed by the respondent.

The court found itself unable to proceed with the confirmation hearing due to the absence of a crucial transcript from the Alberta proceedings where the decision to reduce arrears was originally rendered.

The court ordered the production of this missing transcript on an expedited basis and extended a temporary stay of enforcement of the original divorce judgment until the confirmation hearing could be finalized.

The appellant appealed a default order of the Ontario Court of Justice made in a support enforcement proceeding initiated by the Director under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The appellant alleged numerous procedural and jurisdictional errors, including claims that the judge abandoned the courtroom, acted with bias, lacked jurisdiction, and violated international copyright law through the use of the appellant’s name.

The court reviewed the transcript and record and found that the appellant had declined duty counsel, failed to file required financial disclosure, and made no substantive submissions at the default hearing.

The court rejected arguments asserting sovereign‑citizen style theories, including attempts to divide the appellant into a “natural man” and a separate legal debtor to avoid support obligations.

The appeal was dismissed and directions were given for submissions on costs.