The respondent husband moved for an order to have his Canadian passport and other travel documents returned, or alternatively, for a declaration that he had complied with a previous support order by serving 90 days incarceration for non-payment.
The court found the husband's financial evidence to be riddled with inconsistencies and not credible, noting a significant discrepancy between his representations to a lending institution in 2014 and his current financial statements to the court.
The court dismissed the husband's motion, concluding that his true objective was to retrieve his passport and flee the jurisdiction, which would irreparably prejudice the applicant wife's support and equalization rights.
