Lulama Maria Kotze

The applicant wife sought summary judgment on various family law claims, including access, retroactive child support, retroactive section 7 expenses, and adjustments for a joint line of credit.

The parties resolved ongoing child support and equalization.

The court dismissed the wife's motion for summary judgment on access, finding a genuine issue for trial and requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court adjudicated the financial issues, imputing income to the husband for a period of incarceration and determining his share of retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, and the amount owed for the joint line of credit.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on their claims, grounded in contract and misrepresentation regarding "resale on-site guarantees" for their park model trailers, and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim for business interference, breach of confidence, and conversion.

The court declined to grant summary judgment, finding that there were multiple triable issues and significant evidentiary gaps.

These gaps included the absence of key witness testimony from Brett Coleman, concerns about the authenticity of original documents, and insufficient evidence for a confident assessment of damages for both the main action and the counterclaim.

The court invited the parties to confer on a more efficient path forward, possibly a tailored trial procedure.

Following a successful motion for interim spousal and child support, the applicant sought costs of the motion.

The court noted that the applicant obtained an award exceeding the amount contained in her offer to settle, while the respondent made no formal offer to settle and failed to respond to the applicant’s written costs submissions within the time set by the court.

The court found the draft Bill of Costs reasonable.

Costs were therefore awarded in favour of the applicant in the amount claimed.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the motion forthwith.

The responding father brought a motion under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seeking the return of the parties’ child from Ontario to Florida.

The court determined that the child had been habitually resident in Florida immediately prior to the mother’s unilateral removal of the child to Ontario.

The father had custodial rights under Florida law and was exercising those rights at the time of the removal, making the removal wrongful within the meaning of the Convention.

The mother failed to establish any Article 13 defences, including acquiescence, non‑exercise of custody rights, or grave risk of harm.

The court ordered that the child be returned to Florida so that custody and access issues could be determined by the Florida court with jurisdiction.