Thomas Calhoun Hunter

The applicant sought costs for successfully opposing the respondent's request to have his motion to change child support and other relief heard urgently during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The court denied the urgency request due to evidentiary deficiencies in the respondent's materials.

While the applicant was entitled to costs, the court found the time spent preparing the response excessive for an urgency determination, reducing the requested amount from $2,938.49 to $650.

The respondent was granted 30 days to rectify his materials and renew his urgency request, with specific payment terms for costs depending on his actions.

The respondent sought leave to bring an urgent motion to change a prior order regarding access, a restraining order, and child support, citing the COVID-19 crisis.

The court denied the request, finding that a motion to change was not applicable to temporary orders for access and the restraining order, and that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidentiary foundation for an urgent reduction in child support, particularly regarding his income and job search efforts.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's pleadings or, alternatively, require security for costs, primarily due to the respondent's failure to pay a $22,900 cost order.

The court found the respondent's non-payment to be willful and egregious, evidenced by extensive discretionary travel.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings but allowed for reinstatement upon payment of $9,000 to the applicant by certified cheque, cash, or bank draft by March 13, 2020.

Additionally, interim spousal support payable to the respondent was stayed pending trial.

The motion for security for costs was denied as some of the respondent's claims were not entirely devoid of merit.

The applicant and respondent brought motions concerning various family law issues following their separation.

Key issues included the status of the matrimonial home, ownership of a dog, temporary spousal support, repayment of alleged loans, and the return of jewellery.

The court declined to make a final declaration on the matrimonial home and loans, leaving these for trial, but granted the applicant ownership of the dog and ordered the respondent to return the rings.

The respondent was granted temporary spousal support and continued health benefits.

The applicant sought exclusive possession of the parties' Ottawa home and a restraining order against the self-represented respondent.

The court granted the applicant interim exclusive possession of the home, finding that the respondent's psychological, emotional, and other abusive behaviour constituted "violence" under s. 24(3)(f) of the Family Law Act.

An interim restraining order was also issued, as the applicant had reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

The respondent's cross-motion was adjourned due to his failure to properly file necessary financial and other documents.