Karen Kunopaski-Tsinonis

The respondent/moving party, Mr. Godin, brought an interim motion to terminate spousal support payable to the applicant/responding party, Ms. Vesters.

Ms. Vesters argued that the issues required a full hearing and could not be determined solely on a written record.

The court dismissed the interim motion, finding insufficient evidence to determine the appropriate relief, particularly regarding Mr. Godin's retirement, Ms. Vesters' earning capacity, and the valuation of pensions to address "double-dipping" concerns.

A full hearing was deemed necessary.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' child after the respondent father refused to return the child following his parenting time.

The court found that the respondent improperly engaged in self-help by altering the established status quo.

The court ordered the immediate return of the child to the applicant's primary care and established a temporary parenting schedule for the respondent.

The applicant's request for a restraining order was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, but a no-contact order was issued restricting communication to a parenting app.