Azra Champsi

The appellant, Brian Kumar, brought a second appeal seeking to set aside a default order for support arrears, arguing that a Mareva injunction impacted his ability to pay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the lower courts' consideration of the Mareva injunction.

Both the original hearing judge and the first appeal judge had expressly considered its impact, and the appellant had failed to rebut the statutory presumption regarding his ability to pay.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The respondent, Muhammad Ali, brought an urgent motion to terminate a warrant for committal for 118 days, issued due to child support arrears, citing the risks of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change in circumstances.

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) opposed the termination, arguing the request was res judicata and correctional facilities had implemented protective measures.

The court found the motion urgent due to pandemic risks.

While acknowledging the need for enforcement, the court suspended the warrant of committal, rather than terminating it, to protect the respondent from COVID-19 exposure, allowing FRO to seek to lift the suspension once pandemic risks subside.

The applicant and the Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought motions to determine the distribution of the remaining proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent owed significant child support arrears, while a non-party brother held a default judgment against the respondent, and the CRA held liens for tax arrears.

The court held that under the Creditors' Relief Act, the support arrears had priority over the non-party's civil judgment, but not over the CRA's liens for debts owed to the Crown.

The court ordered the CRA liens to be paid first, followed by the support arrears.

The applicant was awarded costs of $10,170 against the respondent.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought enforcement of a support order requiring the payor to pay child support, spousal support, and section 7 educational expenses.

The payor sought to pay substantially reduced amounts, claiming inability to pay due to unemployment, bankruptcy, and tax debt.

The court rejected the payor's request for reduced support, finding that he had not demonstrated a valid reason for non-payment, had not accepted responsibility for his obligations, and had credibility issues.

The court maintained the full ongoing support obligation pending a final default hearing.