Yunjae Kim

This appeal concerned a contempt finding from the Superior Court of Justice.

Based on a settlement reached by the parties, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The requirement for an apology letter, as stipulated in the original order, was set aside.

Instead, the appellant was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine to the Minister of Finance.

No costs were awarded for the appeal.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final parenting order, seeking a temporary reversal of primary residence and a 120-day no-contact period between the child and the respondent mother due to severe parental alienation.

The mother had repeatedly thwarted the father's parenting time, made unsubstantiated allegations of physical and sexual abuse, and sabotaged reunification therapy.

The court found that the mother's alienating behaviour constituted family violence and placed the child at risk of emotional harm.

Applying the stringent test for temporary variation of a final order, the court granted the father's motion, reversing primary residence to the father and ordering a 120-day blackout period for the mother to allow the father and child to participate in a reunification program.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion against the respondent mother for her failure to comply with a November 2, 2022, court order regarding the resumption of his parenting time with their daughter.

The daughter, now eleven, resisted visits, and the mother's efforts to facilitate them were deemed insufficient.

The court found the mother in contempt, emphasizing the parental duty to encourage the child's relationship with the other parent and rejecting the child's reluctance as a valid excuse for non-compliance.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant mother to strike the respondent father's pleadings for failure to provide financial disclosure in a child support matter.

The court awarded the mother $9,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable monthly, and declared the award enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as a support order.

While the mother was successful, the court found her counsel's time claimed somewhat excessive and noted her failure to serve a formal Rule 18 Offer to Settle, which precluded full cost recovery.

The father's unreasonable conduct and willful refusal to provide disclosure were significant factors in the award.

This is a trial decision concerning the allocation of garnished funds owed by the respondent to the applicant.

The parties had multiple outstanding debts from a prior divorce order, including child support, spousal support (lump sum and arrears), and property equalization payments.

The respondent argued that garnished funds should first be applied to spousal support due to its priority under the Creditors' Relief Act.

The court held that the Creditors' Relief Act's priority provisions apply to multiple creditors, not to the allocation of undifferentiated payments from a single debtor to multiple debts owed to the same creditor.

Applying the common law principle of apportionment, the court ruled that the applicant, as the creditor, had the discretion to allocate the garnished funds to maximize her recovery, specifically by applying them first to the property-related debts, allowing the lump sum spousal support to be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) and thus survive potential bankruptcy.

The respondent brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding the sale of a property, "Robin Hill Farm." The applicant argued that no binding agreement was reached and that his former counsel lacked authority to settle on his behalf.

The court found that the parties had agreed to all essential terms of the settlement through counsel's correspondence and that the applicant's former solicitor had ostensible authority to bind him.

The motion was granted, enforcing the settlement agreement.

The applicant mother sought an order requiring the respondent father to disclose unredacted U.S. income tax returns for 2017 and 2018, including his current wife's income information.

The father opposed disclosure, citing his wife's privacy interests.

The court balanced the privacy interests of the third-party spouse against the mother's need for accurate income information to calculate child support, particularly regarding tax rate differentials under the Child Support Guidelines.

The court found that disclosure of the wife's income was necessary to accurately determine the father's effective tax rate for gross-up calculations, as the father and wife filed joint returns with a blended tax rate.

The respondent father sought a summary decision on whether the Ontario Court of Justice had jurisdiction to make a new child support order or retroactively vary child support provisions of a Colombian divorce order dated November 7, 2006.

The father argued that since Colombia is not a reciprocating jurisdiction under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, the mother had no recourse in Ontario and must seek relief in Colombia.

The mother argued that Ontario had jurisdiction based on real and substantial connection and forum of necessity, as she and the child had been permanently resident in Ontario since 2014, and the father had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction regarding custody and access.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction to determine child support, distinguishing the case from precedents involving forum shopping and applying the Muscutt jurisdictional factors.