This appeal concerned the jurisdiction of an Ontario court to make a child support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 (ISO Act) when a foreign support order from Finland already existed, but its registration in Ontario had been set aside due to the payor's fraudulent misrepresentations.
The Superior Court had quashed the Ontario Court of Justice's order for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that two valid support orders could not coexist.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 21 of the ISO Act explicitly grants Ontario courts jurisdiction to hear a new support application in such circumstances, especially given the payor's deceptive conduct.
The court emphasized the ISO Act's purpose of facilitating support enforcement and dismissed concerns about potential double recovery.
