“Courts in the past have dealt with R.E.S.P.s on a motion and I find sufficient precedent for this court to deal with the issue of the R.E.S.P.s on this temporary motion.
As cited in McConnell v. McConnell, paras. 146-148, the court noted as follows:
[146] There is precedent for the court, on the application of one spouse, to remove the other as the co-title-holder of an R.E.S.P. In Vetro v. Vetro, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a motion judge’s decision to strike the father’s pleading on the ground, among others, that he had failed to comply with an order requiring him to repay funds that he had removed from his children’s R.E.S.P. The Court stated:
In addition, the appellant took money from the children’s R.E.S.P. for his own purposes and although he agreed to repay the money he had only repaid $2,000 of the $5,500 he took. Irrespective of the issues of disclosure, the motion judge struck the pleadings on the basis of the appellant’s non-compliance with prior court orders and, having regard to the history and circumstances of the case, he was entitled to do so without giving the appellant any further opportunity to correct or explain his defaults.
[147] In Maimone v. Maimone, Fragomeni J. ordered that the husband be removed as administrator of the R.E.S.P.s and that the R.E.S.P.s be transferred to the wife, on the ground that the husband had not demonstrated any financial responsibility and had made “less than frank and truthful disclosure” throughout the proceedings. Similarly, in Borisoff v. Borisoff, Dillon J. of the B.C. Supreme Court ordered the R.E.S.P. be transferred
[148] For the foregoing reasons, this court is invoking its inherent jurisdiction to remove Mr. McConnell as trustee of the children’s R.E.S.P. He and Ms. McConnell will both benefit by the payments made from the R.E.S.P. as a result of the expenses to which they are required to contribute being reduced by payments being made from the fund. Ms. McConnell will therefore be required to account to Mr. McConnell for any disbursements she makes from the R.E.S.P. This will enable both parties to calculate the net s.7 expenses of each child and their own respective proportionate contributions, at the hearing on April 22nd.
My conclusion, therefore, is that this court has jurisdiction to deal with the children’s R.E.S.P. accounts.”