Aneesa R. Oumarally

The parties separated after a 12-year traditional marriage.

The applicant father retained custody of the two children, while the respondent mother retrained and entered the workforce.

The court determined the parties' incomes for support purposes, declining to find the applicant intentionally underemployed but averaging his income over three years due to a recent drop.

The respondent was awarded spousal support of $650 per month based on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, subject to a five-year review.

The court also ordered retroactive child and spousal support, resulting in a net payment owed by the respondent.

Furthermore, the court enforced a prior consent order requiring the applicant to repay the CRA for child tax benefits improperly received into a joint account post-separation.

Finally, the respondent was ordered to pay her proportional share of certain section 7 expenses.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims for divorce, spousal support, and property equalization, arguing that their religious marriage ceremony was legally invalid because no marriage licence was obtained.

The wife argued she entered the marriage in good faith, intending to comply with the Marriage Act, and relied on the husband's representation that a licence could be obtained later.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that the conflicting factual assertions regarding the validity of the marriage and the parties' intentions created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The applicant mother sought an order denying the respondent father any access to their son, Caleb, born in 2008.

The parties separated in 2009 when Caleb was nine months old.

The father had a history of violence toward the mother, criminal convictions including assault and breach of probation, and failed to pay child support.

The father initially missed supervised access visits and then failed to pursue access for several years.

When supervised access was eventually arranged, the child refused to see his father due to the passage of time and lack of encouragement from the mother.

The court found both parents' conduct concerning but ultimately granted the father limited contact through correspondence and gifts, with access at the mother's discretion, recognizing that the passage of time and the mother's lack of encouragement had made a meaningful relationship impossible to establish.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to reduce his child support obligation and fix arrears at a nominal amount, claiming he had made direct cash payments to the applicant and that two letters signed by the applicant forgave accumulated arrears.

The applicant opposed the motion, claiming she never received direct payments and that the letters were signed under pressure without intent to forgive arrears.

The court found that the two letters dated May 28, 2006 and November 13, 2009 did forgive arrears for the period from March 1, 2005 to November 30, 2009.

However, the court rejected the respondent's claim of direct cash payments for the subsequent period, finding insufficient corroboration.

The court fixed arrears at $7,036.29 and varied ongoing child support from $605.00 to $496.00 per month based on a demonstrated change in the respondent's income.