K. Younie

The applicant father brought an undefended motion to find the respondent mother in contempt of court for failing to return their two children from India to Ontario, in violation of a prior court order.

The mother, who was personally served, did not respond or appear.

The court found the mother in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting she deliberately disobeyed the clear and unequivocal order.

The court ordered the mother to pay $9,000 in full recovery costs, struck her pleadings to allow the father to proceed to an uncontested trial, and imposed a financial penalty of $100 per day for each day she remains in contempt.

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage.

The trial addressed the equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The respondent sought to include a $500,000 settlement payment the applicant made to his first wife as a date-of-marriage liability or as grounds for an unequal division of property; the court dismissed both arguments.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the respondent intentionally underemployed.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment and a lump sum for spousal support based on the high end of the SSAG for an eight-year duration, less credits for post-separation overpayments.

The moving party father brought a motion for access to his two-year-old daughter.

The responding party mother argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the motion was brought after a 30-day deadline set in a previous order.

The court extended the time to hear the motion under Rule 3(5) of the Family Law Rules, noting the father had not seen the child in several months.

The mother sought supervised access, but the court found no basis for her concerns or that the father was a flight risk.

The court ordered temporary unsupervised access twice a week and prohibited the removal of the child from Ontario.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's monetary award for unjust enrichment, lump sum spousal support, and costs.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's calculation of the unjust enrichment award, which properly accounted for set-offs.

The court also upheld the lump sum spousal support order, noting the trial judge properly weighed its advantages and disadvantages, including the appellant's history of late payments.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.