P. Viater

The respondent father brought a motion seeking police enforcement under s. 36(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act to locate, apprehend, and deliver the children for access, as well as make-up time for missed visits.

The applicant mother had withheld access, alleging the father failed to comply with Covid-19 protocols and restrictions on third-party contact from a previous order.

The court dismissed the request for police enforcement, finding it an exceptional remedy not warranted in this high-conflict case where the father had shown poor judgment in complying with the spirit of the previous order.

However, the court granted make-up access to allow the father to reconnect with the children and normalize the parenting schedule.

The moving party, an employee of the invoice payor, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the fraud action against him.

The plaintiff factoring company was defrauded of millions of dollars through fictitious invoices.

The moving party claimed his identity was stolen by the fraudsters to confirm the fake invoices and that he was also a victim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the moving party's emails, his financial ties to the fraudulent payee, and credibility issues among the co-defendants created genuine issues requiring a trial.

In a family law motion arising from competing motions to change a prior consent final order, the moving party sought to terminate spousal support, set aside arrears, add the respondent’s new spouse as a party for disclosure and questioning, and amend his motion to change to raise additional issues including custody and access.

The court held that termination of spousal support could not be granted on the interlocutory motion.

The request to add the respondent’s new spouse as a party was dismissed because no claim was advanced against the proposed party and he had not been served.

The court emphasized the moving party’s ongoing breach of existing support orders and concluded the attempt to add the new spouse would delay trial.

Leave was granted only to amend pleadings to properly set out issues already identified in a prior consent order, and the matter was directed to proceed promptly to trial.

Following a motion for leave to appeal temporary family law orders and a request for a stay pending appeal, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had been granted leave to appeal and obtained a partial stay of orders relating to child support, spousal support, and a prior costs award.

The responding party argued that no costs should be awarded because the moving party was only partially successful.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering the factors under Rule 24(11), the court held that the moving party was the successful party overall and was therefore entitled to costs.

The respondent sought leave to appeal temporary family law orders requiring payment of child support, spousal support, and costs, and requested a stay pending appeal.

The challenge focused on the motion judge’s imputation of income that included legal fees paid by the respondent’s father as part of the respondent’s income for support purposes.

The court held there was good reason to doubt the correctness of including third‑party payment of legal fees in the imputation of income and that the issue was of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

Leave to appeal was granted on that narrow issue.

A partial stay of the support and costs orders was also granted pending appeal, with reduced interim child and spousal support amounts based only on other financial benefits received from the respondent’s father.