Aaron Samuel Wayne MacKenzie

The Applicant Mother sought an order for the child to attend Woodroffe Public School or, alternatively, Robert Hopkins Public School.

The Respondent Father opposed, seeking Convent Glen Public School or Heritage Public School.

The court, applying the best interests of the child principle under the Children's Law Reform Act, ordered the child to attend Robert Hopkins Public School, which was the Mother's alternative choice.

The decision also specified arrangements for parenting exchanges, with school exchanges during the week and exchanges at the maternal grandmother's home on weekends.

The moving party, Jefferey Dunn, sought to vary a 2011 child support order and reduce arrears, arguing a material change in circumstances due to lower income and the responding party's delay in enforcement.

The court dismissed his motion, finding he failed to prove a material change, particularly regarding his imputed income, and that he was aware or wilfully ignorant of the original order.

The court also found the responding party's delay in enforcement reasonable given the moving party's erratic and threatening behaviour.

The court rendered a costs endorsement following a six-day trial in a family law matter.

The Applicant sought substantial costs, arguing she was largely successful on major issues such as imputed income and support.

The Respondent argued for each party to bear their own costs, claiming neither party's offer to settle was more favourable.

The court found the Applicant to be the more successful party on the major issues, particularly regarding imputed income and retroactive support, and awarded the Applicant $15,000 in costs, considering the complexity of issues, parties' behaviour, and expert fees.

The applicant, Ms. Boily, brought a motion to change a divorce order, seeking retroactive and ongoing spousal support and child support adjustments.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's significantly higher income in 2012 compared to the initial order.

The court imputed income to the applicant for support purposes due to unexplained business expenses and her failure to pursue a higher-earning profession for which she was trained.

Retroactive spousal support was awarded for 2012 and 2013, but none for subsequent years or on an ongoing basis.

Child support was adjusted for 2015 and set for 2018.

The court emphasized the need for litigation to cease.

This judgment addresses a discrete trial of an issue concerning retroactive child and spousal support payable by the respondent from September 24, 2009, to December 31, 2011.

The court determined that no support was payable for the last quarter of 2009.

For 2010, child support was set at $1268 per month based on an annual income of $65,000, with no spousal support.

For 2011, child support was set at $624 per month based on an annual income of $31,708, with no spousal support.

The court emphasized the reliance on CRA Notices of Assessment for income determination, dismissing the applicant's speculative claims of higher income.

This final order replaced previous temporary orders, and the Family Responsibility Office was directed to adjust arrears accordingly.

The applicant, an Early Childhood Educator, alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondent inequitably distributed wage subsidies, excluded her from training, and unfairly reduced her hours.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking disclosure of various documents related to training, subsidies, staffing, and parent notices.

The Tribunal found the requested documents to be arguably relevant to the issues in dispute and ordered the respondent to produce them, noting that confidentiality concerns do not preclude disclosure under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.