Sherri D. Moss

The applicant father sought a declaration that the respondent mother wrongfully removed their two children from China to Ontario, and an order for their return.

The mother argued the Ontario court had jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(b) or s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that while the children were physically present in Ontario, there was no substantial evidence regarding their best interests in the province, and the balance of convenience did not favour Ontario.

The court also rejected the mother's argument that returning the children to China would cause them serious harm.

The court declared the removal wrongful and ordered the children returned to China.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent wife brought a motion to compel further financial disclosure from the applicant husband's sister, who was a named tenant in common on the matrimonial home.

The wife claimed the husband was the true beneficial owner of the sister's 50% interest and sought a constructive and resulting trust.

The court ordered the sister to produce various documents, including a 2014 Notice of Assessment, a mortgage application, a police report regarding stolen cash, proof of loan repayment, joint bank statements, and housing authority renewals, finding them relevant to determining the true source of the funds used to purchase the property.

The wife was awarded costs of $3,500.

The respondent father brought two contempt motions against the applicant mother for alleged breaches of a 2013 custody and access order.

The court found the mother in contempt for the period between October 2017 to April 18, 2018 and on September 21, October 5 and 19, 2018, but rejected allegations regarding earlier periods.

The court determined that while the mother initially facilitated access, she deliberately interfered with the father's relationship with the children following an October 2017 incident by creating an atmosphere that supported the children's expressed reluctance to visit.

The court imposed a graduated access schedule with financial penalties for missed visits rather than ordering extended makeup access or imposing a fine.

The applicant sought an order prohibiting the respondent from taking further steps in the proceeding, including his motion to set aside a previous order, until he paid $250,000 towards child support arrears or posted security.

The respondent argued he could not pay until he received his share of the proceeds from a court-ordered sale of a jointly owned property, which the applicant controlled.

The court found the record deficient and directed the applicant to provide a timetable for listing the property and the respondent to provide an updated financial statement before deciding the motion.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a child support order dated August 26, 2003, seeking to reduce or terminate child support and section 7 expenses for his daughter, who had turned 18.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking retroactive increases to child support based on the father's increased income over the preceding three years, and seeking costs.

The court found that the father had not established a material change in circumstances, as his income had consistently exceeded the amount upon which the original order was based.

The court further found the father was intentionally under-employed following his dismissal from his previous employment and imputed income accordingly.

The court ordered retroactive child support arrears and increased ongoing support based on imputed income, along with costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The respondent father had recently left his high-paying job at his parents' business to become a commercial real estate agent, resulting in a significant drop in his reported income.

He also failed to comply with court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The court found the respondent was intentionally under-employed and imputed an income of $124,000 to him based on his past earnings.

The court imputed an income of $28,000 to the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim child support of $1,709 per month and interim spousal support of $1,876 per month, retroactive to January 2012.