Alexandra Seaton

A child protection application brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto against parents E.S. and F.S. regarding three children (N., M., and A.) who had been exposed to domestic violence during the marriage.

The respondent father brought a motion to dismiss the protection application, arguing that the Society had failed to establish grounds for protection and that the application constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the father's motion and granted the Society's motion for temporary supervision with conditions, including that the father's access to the vulnerable child M. be subject to the child's wishes, while allowing unsupervised access to the younger child A. pending a full protection hearing.

On a family law motion concerning interim support and the proposed sale of the matrimonial home, the court used the applicant's 2014 line 150 income, subject only to deduction of a $12,000 car allowance, to calculate support.

The court rejected the position that dividend income accumulating but not paid out should be excluded, finding it constituted available income for support purposes.

Monthly spousal support, summertime child support, and a 60% contribution to the child's s. 7 expenses were ordered effective July 1, 2015.

The request for an immediate sale of the matrimonial home was dismissed, and arrears issues were left to the trial judge.

The applicant brought a motion to change prior support orders relating to spousal and child support following divorce.

The respondent sought an order striking the motion due to the applicant’s repeated failure to attend court proceedings, comply with costs orders, and pay support obligations.

Evidence established substantial arrears in child and spousal support and section 7 expenses.

The court found the applicant had effectively abandoned his motion and that his non-compliance with court orders justified striking his pleadings.

The respondent was awarded full indemnity costs and section 7 expenses, with amounts ordered enforceable as spousal support through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant sought a reduction and eventual termination of spousal support obligations under a 2004 separation agreement, requesting retroactive effect from January 1, 2010.

The respondent opposed the reduction and sought payment of amounts owing under a cost-of-living clause.

The court found the respondent was more successful on the key issue of whether the support obligation should be terminated, ordering ongoing spousal support in a step-down manner rather than termination.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, accounting for litigation conduct, tax deductibility of legal fees, and time reasonably spent.

The applicant brought a motion to reduce or terminate his spousal support obligations under a 2004 separation agreement, citing his terminal cancer diagnosis, retirement, and the respondent's repartnering.

The court found the agreement permitted a de novo review.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the applicant had not fully withdrawn from his business and the respondent had not made reasonable efforts to become self-sufficient.

The court also considered the financial benefit the respondent received from her new partner.

Spousal support was reduced in a stepped manner for 2011, 2012, and 2013 onwards.

The applicant's request for retroactive reduction to 2010 was denied, and he was ordered to pay arrears under a cost of living clause.

The applicant sought to reduce his spousal support obligation from $6,000 monthly to $3,000 monthly commencing January 1, 2010, and terminate it as of January 1, 2011, citing his retirement due to prostate cancer.

The respondent opposed the motion and claimed $16,414.84 owing under a cost of living clause.

The court determined this was a de novo review under the separation agreement rather than a variation requiring material change in circumstances.

The court found the applicant had not fully retired from business and imputed 50% of his prior business income.

The court reduced support to $5,000 monthly for 2011, $4,600 monthly for 2012, and $3,900 monthly from 2013 onward.

The court awarded the respondent $9,412.98 for cost of living increases from October 2005 to December 2009.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order reviewing spousal and child support under a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons deficient for failing to determine the appellant's income or justify departing from the Child Support Guidelines and Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

To avoid a new trial, the Court of Appeal imputed the appellant's income at $250,000 due to his failure to make full disclosure.

The Court applied the Guidelines, ordering $4,071 monthly for child support and $4,597 monthly for spousal support, and directed proportional sharing of section 7 expenses.