Nadine Russell

The applicant moved for a post-judgment Mareva injunction in aid of execution, alleging the respondent intended to sell his home and move to Mexico to avoid paying child support and costs.

The court found the applicant established a strong prima facie case that there was a risk the respondent intended to remove assets from the jurisdiction.

The balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, which was ordered to remain in effect for 120 days.

The applicant father sought the return of the child to London, Ontario, arguing the respondent mother had wrongfully relocated to Alberta and changed the child's habitual residence.

The respondent mother challenged jurisdiction, asserting Alberta was the proper forum, or alternatively, sought interim primary care in Alberta.

The court determined that Ontario retained jurisdiction, finding the child's habitual residence was London and the mother's relocation was unilateral and without consent.

Despite this, the court declined to order the child's immediate return to London, instead ordering an expedited trial and permitting the child to start school in Alberta, concluding that the mother had a cogent argument for success on the relocation issue at trial.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to prohibit the respondent mother from relocating with their two-year-old child from Simcoe to Norwich prior to a case conference.

The parties had separated and were disputing parenting time, with the father seeking equal shared parenting.

The court found the proposed move premature and lacking urgency, noting that the status quo and competing custody claims needed to be determined on a complete evidentiary record.

The motion was granted, and the mother was prohibited from moving the child pending further order.