"He must first purge his contempt and THEN he can be heard in court."
He tried that, "Meanwhile, on 7 May 2013, Mr ZZZZZZ brought a motion in the Ontario Court seeking (i) an order purging all contempts and declaring him compliant with all outstanding court orders; (ii) an order to rescind the warrant of arrest issued in 2003; (iii) an order to permit him to bring a motion to vary; (iv) an order for the retroactive adjustment of the support payments; and (v) an order fixing the amount of arrears and on-going support in accordance with the relevant guidelines. "
"I find it difficult to believe a judge in Canada would hold him in contempt and issue an arrest warrant if proper legal procedure had not been followed."
In Canada domestic service can be completed by mailing the documents. International service must follow the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, aka the "Hague Service Convention". If he had been served in Hong Kong, the documents are transmitted on a diplomatic level to Hong Kong, and then served by the Hong Kong Government on behalf of the Canadian court.
There was no evidence provided in Hong Kong to suggest he was served, in fact there is an appearance that improper service was made in order for additional court hearings to be made in Canada.
"At the time the proceedings began in Arizona, he had a US Green Card. Having one requires residency in a US state. Can't have it both ways."
He had married an aboriginal two years prior and therefore gained residency through marriage.
As far as I know, Canada retains jurisdiction and Arizona (and, at one time, Hong Kong) were just used to COLLECT the support, not change the nature of it nor its amount.
That is not correct, the action in Arizona was not for the Canadian child support order, it was for enforcement of the Hong Kong Mareva injunction which was obtained by fraud.
To enforce a Canadian order in the US, the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) in Canada must file a uniform support petition under the Arizona Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The process involves the FRO sending the documents to the central authority in Arizona who in turn sends it to the Interstate Child Support Attorney in the county where the respondent lives. It is then up to the county Interstate Child Support Attorney to determine if the State has personal jurisdiction over the respondent.
It would appear the order made in Arizona was not a UIFSA action, it was a separate pleading based upon the Mareva injunction granted in Hong Kong.
That injunction has been rescinded in Hong Kong, in part because the wife had multiple actions for the same matter before two different courts "She also breached the undertaking not to institute proceedings without leave of the Hong Kong court by pursuing contempt proceedings in Arizona. I discharge the Mareva injunction and decline to regrant it". The basis for the Arizona action " the Mareva injunction" is now null and void. The Hong Kong Court said he may transfer assets.
"It appears to be an attempt to collect what is owed on the original, Canadian judgment.."
Incorrect, however the following facts were found :
- the father had paid child support directly to the mother;
- the mother did not report the payments to the FRO or the courts;
- all the matrimonial assets were transferred into the mothers name by court order;
- the mother had sold their matrimonial assets without paying the father the equalization payment;
- the mother misrepresented the fathers income to the Ontario courts;
- the mother, who herself was earning significant income as an Air Canada captain refused to provide her income details to the Ontario courts;
- the mothers expenses exceeded her income, this suggests undeclared income.
"Arizona was not improper because as soon as she filed in Hong Kong he told the Hong Kong court he was employed in the US and lived in Arizona."
By all accounts that is true and correct at the time, he was based in the US at that time. This matter spans 13 years.
"I believe there was LOTS of miscommunication and misunderstandings which resulted in these statements in the court documents. "
I agree totally, like how the Hong Kong courts saw the employers compulsory on-shoring of all US based employees as an voluntarily action to move assets from Hong Kong.
"However, the Hong Kong court did state that the fraudulent transfer action filed in Arizona court IS another action."
The basis for that action is null and void, the Hong Kong injunction has been rescinded.
"the contempt proceedings in Arizona for fraudulent transfer are, as I said above, most likely new proceedings rather than an attempt to collect child support"
The contempt proceedings in Arizona were based upon the Hong Kong injunction, not for the enforcement of a registered Canadian child support order. The Hong Kong Court found amongst others there was no common law basis for the Canadian child support order in Hong Kong.
"Where the father resides is very clear, now. However, over these past years, it was a bit nebulous."
That is you statement, the judgement said the FRO was aware of his address at all times and that was not in dispute.