Barbara Puckering

This decision resolves cross-motions to change a 2016 Divorce Order regarding child and spousal support, and the sharing of section 7 expenses for two children after one left for university.

The court addresses the treatment of non-recurring income for support purposes, the netting down of retroactive spousal support, and the imputation of income to the recipient.

The court finds that certain non-recurring employment benefits should be excluded from the payor’s income, retroactive spousal support should be netted down, and imputes income to the recipient.

The court sets out detailed calculations for arrears, overpayments, and the parties’ respective shares of section 7 expenses, and makes orders for ongoing support and expense sharing.

The appellant father appealed a child support order, arguing the trial judge erred in imputing income based on a housing benefit and in making the order retroactive to the child's birth.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's decision regarding imputed income, which was based on an adverse inference due to the father's non-compliance with disclosure orders and the value of free luxury accommodation received from his brother for engineering services.

The court also upheld the retroactive child support order, noting the father's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide proper financial disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs awarded to the respondent after the applicant's spousal support application was dismissed due to abandonment and under Rule 1(8)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant, an unrepresented litigant, pursued a claim of questionable merit, failed to comply with court orders, and ultimately ceased participation, forcing the respondent to incur significant legal expenses for trial preparation.

The court found the applicant's conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, noting her refusal to accept reasonable settlement offers, including one that would have discharged a $65,000 debt and waived all costs.

Applying principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and sanctioning inappropriate behaviour, the court awarded the respondent full recovery costs.

This trial decision addressed child support, income imputation, section 7 expenses, and costs.

The court found the applicant's financial disclosure deficient and imputed income to him based on significant non-taxable housing benefits received from his family's real estate business.

Retroactive child support was ordered from the child's birth.

The court also determined which section 7 expenses were extraordinary and how they should be shared between the parties.

Costs for the parenting order, which was settled prior to trial, were not awarded to either party.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion decision regarding temporary custody of a six-year-old child and temporary spousal support.

The court had previously granted the applicant (mother) temporary sole custody and ordered the respondent (father) to pay temporary spousal support of $884 per month.

The applicant sought costs of $2,712, while the respondent argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and awarded costs of $1,800 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $150 per month commencing February 1, 2018.

The mother and father brought competing motions for temporary custody of their six-year-old daughter with special needs.

The mother sought temporary spousal support of $884 per month.

The father initially sought custody but changed his position during the hearing to request either no custody order or a joint custody order.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother, finding that the level of communication between the parties was too poor to justify a joint custody order.

The court also found that the mother was entitled to temporary spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds and ordered the father to pay $884 per month in spousal support and $528 per month in child support.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking expanded temporary parenting time, including overnight access and one week of summer access, pending completion of a s. 30 custody and access assessment.

The mother opposed the motion, relying on evidence of the father’s ongoing anger issues and the emotional impact of the current access arrangements on one of the children.

The court held that the father had not established a material change in circumstances since the recent interim order governing access and noted that only five months had elapsed since the previous order.

Evidence indicated continued behavioural concerns and lack of insight into the father’s conduct, which raised concerns about the children’s well-being.

The court concluded that expanding access would not be in the children’s best interests at this time.

The mother brought a motion for interim sole custody, supervised access for the father, and an order for a parenting assessment.

The father cross-moved for unsupervised access and shared custody.

The court found a history of domestic violence and high conflict, with the father demonstrating an inability to control his anger and verbal abuse in front of the children.

The court granted the mother interim sole custody, ordered a parenting assessment by Dr. Butkowsky, and granted the father unsupervised access on weekdays but continued supervised access on Saturdays for one month while he enrolls in an anger management course.

The affidavit of the father's sister was struck for containing hearsay.