Case information

Family law — Support — Child support — Courts — Jurisdiction — Mother seeking parenting orders, retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses under the Family Law Act, R.S.O 1990, c. F-3 — Original child support order made on consent in state of Michigan — Neither party residing in Michigan at the time of the mother’s application — Whether a Canadian court retains jurisdiction to make a child support order under provincial legislation where a foreign divorce order exists that includes a provision for child support, and where the child support payor has attorned to the jurisdiction — How the broad powers of the court to give directions on summary judgment motions should be invoked in the context of jurisdictional cases involving issues of retroactive and ongoing child support.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The parties married in 2003 and separated in 2009. The child of the marriage was born in 2007. At the time of separation, the family had been residing in the state of Michigan, but the applicant mother and child immediately relocated to the London, Ontario area. The mother subsequently commenced a divorce action in Michigan that resulted in a Consent Judgment of Divorce on April 26, 2010. It provided, inter alia, for joint legal custody with the mother to have primary care, regular and holiday parenting time for the respondent father, and provided for child support of $1,700 US per month payable by the father. The father relocated to Georgia and then to Nebraska. In 2016, a dispute arose between the parties over the father’s parenting time and the mother suspended the father’s access.

The mother brought an application for sole custody, supervised access for the father, child support and retroactive and ongoing s. 7 expenses. The father brought a motion to dismiss the mother’s application on the basis that the child support issue had to be addressed under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 13 (“ISOA”) and not the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. The application judge ruled that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the mother’s application under the Family Law Act. The route to vary the child support order was under the ISOA. This decision was upheld on appeal. The mother’s claims for retroactive and ongoing child support and s. 7 expenses were dismissed.