James W. Jeffcott

The applicant initiated proceedings seeking property division, exclusive possession, and partition and sale of a jointly owned residence.

The central issue was determining the parties' date of separation, as the applicant initially pleaded December 8, 2020, but later asserted August 2015.

The respondent, represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) due to incapacity, could not confirm the date.

The court applied the corroboration requirement under s. 14 of the Ontario Evidence Act for claims against an incapable party.

Based on objective medical records and financial evidence, the court rejected the applicant's revised date and found the date of separation to be December 8, 2020.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to dismiss the applicant's claim for child support, the applicant sought costs of $7,402.62.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, noting the complexity of the jurisdiction issue and the mixed conduct of both parties.

Taking into account the respondent's limited ability to pay and his obligations in Russia, the court awarded the applicant reduced costs of $1,019.83.

The respondent sought to dismiss the applicant's child support claim in Ontario for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant and child reside in Russia, a non-reciprocating jurisdiction, and that Ontario was *forum non conveniens*.

The applicant, residing in Russia, sought an Ontario order for enforceability due to the respondent's irregular payments.

The court found it had "presence-based" jurisdiction over the respondent, who lives in Ontario, and that the *Family Law Act* does not require the child to reside in Ontario.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, assuming jurisdiction and applying Ontario law, conditional on the applicant vacating the Russian support order.

The respondent father moved for joint custody, increased parenting time, a relocation restriction, a custody/access assessment, and child support.

The applicant mother cross-moved for sole custody, reduced parenting time, permission to relocate, and child support.

The court declined to make an interim custody order, maintained the existing parenting schedule, ordered an update to the Office of the Children's Lawyer report instead of a full assessment, set child support payable by the father based on his 2015 income, and restricted the mother from relocating the child beyond a 15 km radius from her current residence without a further court order.

The applicant sought divorce, child support, s. 7 expenses, and an unequal division of net family property.

The respondent failed to attend the uncontested trial and did not provide financial information.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, ordered child support and arrears based on imputed income for the respondent, and ordered payment of s. 7 expenses.

The court adjusted the net family property equalization to zero, finding it improper to reward the non-compliant party for their conduct and failure to contribute to joint debts.

The court also ordered the sale of an investment property with net proceeds to the applicant and granted judgment for specific joint debts paid by the applicant.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The responding party brought a motion to set aside the registration in Ontario of a Pennsylvania child support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The moving party argued he was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and that registration was contrary to public policy because the order was being enforced elsewhere and he was not in arrears.

The court reviewed the legal test for ordinary residence from leading authorities and considered the moving party’s routine of spending approximately three months each year in Ontario while maintaining property, licences, and other ties to the province.

The court held that a person may be ordinarily resident in more than one jurisdiction and found that the established pattern of returning annually to Ontario constituted ordinary residence.

None of the statutory grounds for setting aside the registration were established.