Mary-Jo Maur

The respondent mother sought leave to appeal an interim spousal support order fixing support at $1,500 per month.

She argued the motion judge improperly treated the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines ceiling of $350,000 as a hard cap despite the payor’s higher income.

The court held that applying the SSAG ceiling in an interim support context was within the motion judge’s discretion and did not demonstrate a conflict in legal principles with other decisions.

The applicant also failed to show a good reason to doubt the correctness of the order or that the proposed appeal raised issues of public importance.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The respondent wife brought a motion for summary judgment seeking final orders for custody, supervised access, passport and travel restrictions, and various property and support remedies following separation.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding custody and access, given the mother’s role as primary caregiver and the father’s criminal convictions for offences against the mother and his disengagement from the litigation and supervised access regime.

Custody was granted to the mother and related passport and travel orders were made.

However, the court declined to grant summary judgment regarding lump sum child and spousal support and property-related relief tied to the matrimonial home.

Triable issues remained concerning the value of the property, the mortgage interest of the added party father, and whether lump sum support was properly pleaded and supported by evidence.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal and child support following separation in a high‑income family with multiple jointly owned businesses and properties in Canada and the United States.

The respondent asserted that his income had dropped dramatically in the current year due to health issues, labour disruptions affecting the primary business, and business complications following separation.

The court found the financial disclosure inadequate and rejected the claimed income reduction, instead imputing an interim income of $600,000 to the respondent based on historical earnings.

The applicant was found to have no current income due to termination from the family businesses and inability to work while temporarily residing in Florida.

Interim support was ordered including child support of $3,000 per month and spousal support of $18,000 per month retroactive to July 1, 2012.

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.