3 total
The court awarded $7,000 in costs to the respondent following the applicant's largely unsuccessful and unreasonable motion to change support.
This decision addresses costs following a confirmation hearing for a motion to change spousal and child support.
The applicant's motion was largely dismissed due to deficient and inconsistent evidence, leading to the respondent being deemed the successful party.
The court found the applicant's conduct unreasonable, particularly regarding disclosure and lack of a settlement offer, but not amounting to bad faith.
The respondent's "proposal to resolve" was not considered a formal offer to settle under the Family Law Rules.
Considering the respondent's meticulous preparation and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour, the court awarded the respondent $7,000 in costs, enforceable as support.
Child support Case dismissed
The applicant sought confirmation of an Alberta provisional order to reduce child and spousal support.
The Ontario court found a material change in circumstances for 2010-2013 due to the applicant's alcohol abuse and homelessness, varying support to zero for those years and reducing it for 2013.
However, for subsequent years, the court found the applicant's evidence regarding his income, lifestyle, and relationship with his new partner to be inconsistent, unreliable, and lacking credibility, refusing to confirm the provisional order's ongoing reductions.
The original Ontario order for ongoing support was largely reinstated from 2014 onwards, with child support adjusted for one child.
The court directed a confirmation hearing and requested the original divorce file to determine if a material change in circumstances occurred to vary a default support order.
The applicant sought confirmation of a provisional order from the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, which varied child and spousal support and rescinded arrears.
The respondent opposed.
The Ontario court, sitting as a confirming court, noted its limited jurisdiction to go behind the original default order made in Ontario.
The court requested the original divorce file to understand the basis of the initial order and determine if a material change in circumstances occurred.
The court found no need to remit the matter back to Alberta regarding retroactivity of arrears rescission, as S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.) does not apply to rescission of arrears in Ontario or Alberta.
The matter was set down for a confirmation hearing based on respondent's affidavit evidence and oral testimony.
