Joseph Joel Wright

The respondent mother brought a contempt motion against the applicant father for failing to return their two children after an access visit, in breach of a prior consent order.

The father argued he withheld the children due to COVID-19 risks associated with the mother's employment and the children's expressed desire to stay with him.

The court found the father deliberately misled the court, engaged in self-help, and that his motives were likely to gain a litigation advantage regarding primary residency and child tax benefits.

The court found the father in contempt, ordered the immediate return of the children, and adjourned for submissions on sanctions and costs, including potential police enforcement.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking leave to bring a contempt motion and a police enforcement clause for the return of her two children, who were being withheld by the applicant father after March break.

The father cited concerns about the mother's and her spouse's employment at a detention centre during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court determined the matter met the definition of urgency, specifically involving the alleged wrongful retention of children, and allowed the motion to proceed, setting a schedule for the exchange of materials.

The applicant father sought an urgent motion for an order to restore an equal parenting time schedule for the child, Forest, after the respondent mother refused to return the child citing COVID-19 concerns.

The court determined that the matter met the definition of urgency, involving the well-being and alleged wrongful retention of a child, and allowed the motion to proceed, setting out a procedural schedule for the exchange of materials.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, and the respondent husband brought a cross-motion for interim child support.

The wife claimed she was unable to work due to medical conditions, while the husband argued she was employed by her new partner's law firm.

The court dismissed the wife's motion, finding she failed to establish a prima facie case for entitlement on either compensatory or non-compensatory grounds, largely due to insufficient medical evidence and failure to make proper financial disclosure.

The court also dismissed the husband's motion for child support, declining to impute income to the wife at the interim stage given the conflicting affidavit evidence.

The applicant, Shelley Jacob, brought a motion to vary spousal and child support orders from a 2010 consent order.

The court found that the child of the marriage ceased to be self-supporting as of June 2014, constituting a material change in circumstances.

The court increased spousal support retroactively and on a go-forward basis, applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the tax implications of retroactive support.

Child support was terminated retroactively.

The respondent was also ordered to transfer ownership of a term life insurance policy and designate the applicant as an irrevocable beneficiary of his group life insurance.