Paul G. Andrews

The moving party brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order that froze her bank accounts and made her personally liable for a judgment regarding funds allegedly misappropriated from the responding party's elderly father.

She also argued the seized funds were exempt from seizure under the Wages Act as they originated from a WSIB settlement.

The court dismissed the motion to return the seized funds, exercising its discretion to reduce the wage exemption to 0% for the already seized amounts due to strong prima facie evidence of financial impropriety.

However, the court varied the order to allow an 80% exemption for future wages and directed a trial of the issue regarding her ultimate liability.

The respondent mother brought a motion for contempt against the applicant father, alleging multiple breaches of a final family court order.

The allegations included failing to offer the right of first refusal during a medical emergency, breaching the holiday schedule, allowing unauthorized weekend access, failing to exchange the children at school on snow days, and delaying authorization for benefit information.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the father's actions did not constitute willful or deliberate breaches of the order, and emphasizing that contempt is a remedy of last resort not to be used lightly in family law disputes.