Lorne Jonathan Fine

The applicant husband brought a motion for interim spousal support following a 27-year marriage, claiming entitlement on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

The court found that the husband failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to spousal support, given extensive conflicting evidence regarding the roles each party played during the marriage, the husband's past and current income, and whether he experienced any economic hardship or decline in standard of living since separation.

The motion was dismissed, as the conflicted record could not support a finding of entitlement at the interim stage; the court noted that entitlement and quantum would need to be resolved at trial.

A secondary motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for disclosure non-compliance was resolved, with outstanding disclosure items to be provided within 14 days.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a Mareva injunction to restrain her daughter, a respondent, from depleting assets in two corporations controlled by the daughter.

The mother also sought an order for questioning of the daughter and corporate respondents.

The court dismissed the Mareva injunction, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a serious risk of asset dissipation or irreparable harm, noting that assets transferred between the daughter's wholly-owned corporations remained traceable.

The motion for questioning was adjourned pending a disclosure motion.

Following a family law motion, the court determined the issue of costs and addressed the respondent’s request for reconsideration of a prior order.

Applying the general principle that costs presumptively follow the result, the court found that the applicant was successful for the most part.

The court considered proportionality, urgency of the matter, and the reasonable expectations of the losing party.

The applicant was awarded fixed costs of $3,500 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The request to reconsider the prior order was declined.

The moving party sought a non‑removal order preventing the custodial parent from travelling with the child to Dubai and also sought changes to the pickup and drop‑off arrangements for access.

The court declined to make a blanket prohibition or authorization regarding international travel because no specific travel plan was before the court and circumstances could change.

The existing order requiring travel notice remained in force, though the notice period for travel to Dubai was extended to 90 days due to concerns associated with a non‑Hague Convention destination.

The court varied the access exchange terms, requiring the parties to conduct weekend exchanges in Kingston to more fairly distribute travel burdens and facilitate the child's relationship with the moving parent.