Ruth Kalnitsky Roth

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the parties' two children from Lebanon to Ontario.

The respondent mother had travelled to Lebanon with the children for a planned vacation but subsequently refused to return, commencing annulment and custody proceedings in a Lebanese religious court and obtaining a travel ban.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that Ontario was the children's habitual residence and assumed jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court declined to defer to the Lebanese court orders, finding that the father had not been given reasonable notice or an opportunity to be heard in those proceedings.

The mother was ordered to return the children to Ontario immediately.

In supplementary reasons following an interim support motion, the court determined outstanding issues regarding section 7 expenses and costs.

The court found that a monthly nanny expense of $1,560 was a legitimate section 7 expense, ordering the respondent to pay his proportionate share based on an imputed income of $100,000.

The court declined to award costs to either party, noting divided success and that neither party's offer to settle was better than the outcome.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support against the respondent father, who is serving a life sentence in prison.

The parties disputed the respondent's income, with the applicant claiming it was $243,531 based on funds received during the relationship, and the respondent claiming it was $50,000 from prison work, rental properties, and sports betting.

The court rejected both figures, finding the respondent's disclosure unreliable but the applicant's lifestyle analysis excessive.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $100,000 and directed the parties to calculate support based on that amount, with spousal support at the mid-range of the SSAGs.

The applicant brought an enforcement motion after the respondent, who is incarcerated, failed to pay a court-ordered $15,000 generalized support payment.

The respondent unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal the support order and delayed payment until shortly before the enforcement motion was heard.

The court found the enforcement motion was justified due to legitimate doubt about payment and awarded the applicant costs of $2,754.55 on a partial indemnity basis.