4 total
Summary judgment granted dismissing motion to change child support due to no material change and non-compliance.
The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's motion to change a final child support order.
The respondent, who had accumulated over $34,000 in arrears and failed to comply with an order to obtain an Islamic divorce, sought to terminate his child support obligations, claiming his income was lower than imputed.
The court granted summary judgment, finding no material change in circumstance as the respondent's actual income was close to the imputed amount.
Alternatively, the court struck the motion to change under Rule 1(8) due to the respondent's flagrant disregard for prior court orders and failure to pay support.
The court vacated the applicant's child support arrears and suspended ongoing support due to his medical inability to work.
The applicant sought to vary a Saskatchewan support order and vacate arrears through a provisional hearing in Ontario.
The court found the applicant credible, accepted his medical evidence limiting his ability to work, and determined his older children were no longer dependents.
The court vacated all arrears from January 1, 2015, to October 1, 2019, and found no ongoing support obligation for the youngest child due to the applicant's inability to pay.
Small Claims appeal dismissed; trial judge properly refused to allow plaintiff to split his case.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for unpaid immigration consulting services.
At trial, the appellant's paralegal closed their case without calling the appellant to testify.
After the respondent testified, the appellant attempted to take the stand to give evidence-in-chief, which the trial judge refused as an improper splitting of the case.
The Divisional Court found no reversible error in the trial judge's management of the trial process and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; action for psychological injuries from a fire was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages arising from a 2009 fire.
The motion judge had dismissed the action as statute-barred because the statement of claim was issued in September 2013, outside the two-year limitation period.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the discoverability principle did not assist the appellant as he was aware of his psychological difficulties by July 2011.