E. Llana Nakonechny

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent wrongfully retained their four children in Ontario under the Hague Convention and an order for their return to Melbourne, Australia.

The respondent did not dispute the applicant's custodial rights or Australia as the children's habitual residence, but argued exceptions under Article 13(a) (consent/acquiescence) and 13(b) (grave risk of harm).

The court found no unequivocal consent or acquiescence by the applicant and determined that the alleged past abuse did not meet the high standard for grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation.

The application was granted, and the children were ordered to be returned to Australia.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to recognize a final custody and access order from the United Kingdom as an order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under section 41(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, alleging breaches of the order and seeking to vary it.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the mandatory criteria for recognizing an extra-provincial order were met and none of the statutory exceptions applied.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the U.K. order was recognized.

The Applicant sought various orders including vesting of the matrimonial home, child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, life insurance, and a divorce.

The Respondent's pleadings were struck due to non-compliance with financial disclosure orders, and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court imputed income to the Respondent and granted most of the Applicant's requests for support, equalization, and property transfer, but declined to compel the Respondent to facilitate the children's Romanian passports.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant on a full indemnity basis due to the Respondent's unreasonable conduct.

This trial addressed several family law issues following a separation, including equalization of net family property, child support (lump sum and ongoing s. 7 expenses), and interest on a pension division.

The court dismissed the applicant's claimed date-of-separation debts for lack of proof, increasing his equalization payment obligation to the respondent.

The respondent's request for a lump sum payment for future child support and s. 7 expenses beyond what the applicant agreed to was denied, as the court found no real risk of non-payment.

The applicant's claim for interest on his share of the respondent's pension was dismissed, as it was not provided for in a prior consent order.

Trust proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home were ordered to be held until costs were determined.

The applicant sought interim child support for an adult child (S.H., age 24) with mental and physical health issues, ongoing university costs, counselling costs, and interim disbursements for legal and expert fees.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking a psychological assessment of S.H., disclosure, and an order to file cryptocurrency investment documents under seal or partially redacted due to security risks.

The court found S.H. was entitled to interim child support and some post-secondary education expenses.

It granted reduced interim disbursements to the applicant for legal and expert fees, to be treated as a loan.

The respondent's request for a psychological assessment of S.H. was adjourned to allow S.H. to obtain independent legal advice, and the request for cryptocurrency redaction was granted due to security concerns.

The respondent brought a motion to change a consent order regarding child access, child support, and travel consents.

The applicant sought to reduce the respondent's access and modify travel consent requirements.

The court varied the access schedule, granting the respondent increased day access and conditional overnight access upon suitable accommodation.

The respondent's requests to reduce child support and expunge arrears were dismissed, as no material change in circumstances was found to warrant a reduction from the previously consented amount.

Travel consent requirements were modified, allowing the applicant to travel within Canada without the respondent's written consent under specific conditions, but retaining the requirement for international travel, school removal, or if it impinged on access.

The respondent was also ordered to promptly sign government documents.

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

The court found no equalization payment owing as the respondent's taxi business in Cuba, purchased with personal injury damages, was excluded property.

Retroactive child support was awarded to the applicant based on imputed income for the respondent's undeclared cash earnings.

Retroactive and ongoing compensatory spousal support was also awarded to the applicant, with the court departing from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines due to economic disadvantages and financial hardship arising from her traditional caregiving role during the marriage.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's divorce application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario for the preceding year.

Alternatively, if jurisdiction was found, the respondent sought to amend her answer to include claims for setting aside a marriage contract, spousal support, and equalization, and argued for *forum non conveniens*.

The court found that the applicant was ordinarily resident in Ontario, establishing jurisdiction for the divorce.

However, applying the *forum non conveniens* factors, particularly the avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings, the court determined that Florida was the clearly more appropriate forum, as the parties and their child resided there and related child-related issues were already being litigated in Florida.

The respondent's motion to dismiss the divorce application was granted.