J. Scott McLeod

This motion addressed several outstanding issues between separated parents, including the management of s. 7 expenses for children, reconciliation of rent revenues from properties, allocation of corporate debt, and a passport penalty.

The court determined that children's acting expenses should be included in the s. 7 budget, with any income generated to be set aside for future post-secondary or acting costs.

It ordered the creation of a new joint bank account for s. 7 contributions with monthly statements.

The court reconciled rent revenues, finding the respondent owed the applicant $18,532.70 after various adjustments.

Claims by the applicant regarding a lien and an HST error related to corporate debt were dismissed, as was the respondent's claim for a passport penalty.

Following a long motion concerning temporary and retroactive spousal support, the court determined costs.

The primary issue in the underlying motion involved imputing income to both parties and relied on competing expert reports from income valuators.

Although the applicant was successful in obtaining a temporary spousal support order, neither party’s offer to settle closely matched the outcome.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering factors such as complexity, counsel rates, time spent, and reasonableness of behaviour, the court reduced the applicant’s claimed costs.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 plus HST and limited disbursements, while the substantial expert report expense was deferred to trial for determination.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order restraining the respondent mother from removing the child from Ontario and disputing the respondent’s claim that Hawaii was the proper jurisdiction for custody and access proceedings.

Concurrent proceedings had been commenced in Hawaii.

Applying ss. 22 and 23 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario despite attending school in Hawaii for several years.

Alternatively, the court held that returning the child to Hawaii posed a risk of serious harm given the child’s escalating behaviour and attempts to remain with the father.

The court therefore exercised jurisdiction in Ontario.

In a child protection proceeding, the child’s father and step‑mother brought a motion seeking an order placing the child in their care and custody.

The court treated the motion as a temporary care and custody hearing under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act because no prior temporary care and custody hearing had been held.

Although the evidence established reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm, the court found that the risk could be adequately addressed through a supervision order while the child remained with the mother and step‑father.

The court emphasized continuity of care, the stage of the proceedings, and the society’s position that supervision was appropriate.

The motion seeking placement with the father and step‑mother was dismissed.