Ontario civil | Contempt of Court
GROUNDS
Having corporation pay for car and cellphone did not violate provisions of court order
Husband, who owned his own real estate firm, was in arrears of support payments in excess of $150,000 and had long history of attempting to avoid obligations under court orders. Current contempt motion arose from order made on Jan. 2, 2013, after husband lost motion to change quantum of his spousal support obligation. Order provided that husband was prohibited from receiving any income other than salary income from any corporation or business in which he held interest when he was in default of any support order and was prohibited from declaring or receiving any dividend income, receiving shareholder loans, receiving any commission income or receiving any other benefits from any corporation or business in which he had interest when he was in default of any support order. In support of yet another motion to change, husband subsequently filed financial statement in which he claimed his car, extended medical and life insurance benefits and his cell phone as benefits paid on his behalf by his company. In this motion for contempt, wife alleged that these items were benefits from husband’s corporation in violation of order that prevented husband from receiving “any other benefits” from any corporation or business in which he had interest while in default of any support order. Wife’s motion for contempt dismissed. Having his corporation pay for his car and cell phone, items that counsel for wife acknowledged husband required for operation of his business, did not violate provisions of court order.
Freedman v. Freedman (Feb. 21, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., Bonnie R. Warkentin J., File No. FC-08-1285) 238 A.C.W.S. (3d) 76.
Having corporation pay for car and cellphone did not violate provisions of court order
Husband, who owned his own real estate firm, was in arrears of support payments in excess of $150,000 and had long history of attempting to avoid obligations under court orders. Current contempt motion arose from order made on Jan. 2, 2013, after husband lost motion to change quantum of his spousal support obligation. Order provided that husband was prohibited from receiving any income other than salary income from any corporation or business in which he held interest when he was in default of any support order and was prohibited from declaring or receiving any dividend income, receiving shareholder loans, receiving any commission income or receiving any other benefits from any corporation or business in which he had interest when he was in default of any support order. In support of yet another motion to change, husband subsequently filed financial statement in which he claimed his car, extended medical and life insurance benefits and his cell phone as benefits paid on his behalf by his company. In this motion for contempt, wife alleged that these items were benefits from husband’s corporation in violation of order that prevented husband from receiving “any other benefits” from any corporation or business in which he had interest while in default of any support order. Wife’s motion for contempt dismissed. Having his corporation pay for his car and cell phone, items that counsel for wife acknowledged husband required for operation of his business, did not violate provisions of court order.
Freedman v. Freedman (Feb. 21, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., Bonnie R. Warkentin J., File No. FC-08-1285) 238 A.C.W.S. (3d) 76.
