Bryan J.F. Teskey

The court considered a motion to change a final order regarding child support, including retroactive and ongoing support, and section 7 expenses.

The court found the respondent had failed to comply with disclosure obligations and imputed an income of $97,240 to him, ordering support and arrears accordingly.

The court also fixed section 7 arrears and awarded costs to the applicant, emphasizing the respondent’s chronic non-compliance and the need to discourage such conduct.

The mother brought a motion for parenting and child support, and the father brought a cross-motion for parenting.

The court granted the mother primary care on a without prejudice basis, with joint decision-making.

The father's parenting time was modestly expanded.

Due to the mother's concerns about the father's adherence to Covid-19 guidelines and the maternal grandfather's high-risk health status, the court imposed strict Covid-19 social circle protocols based on Rocheleau v Lajoie.

For child support, the court imputed an annual income of $245,000 to the self-employed father based on his own prior estimate, ordering him to pay $3,217 monthly.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful paternity test motion brought by the respondent, Jose Vargas, which confirmed he was the biological father.

The applicant, Natasha Saunders, had opposed the paternity test and sought substantial costs, arguing her offer to settle was more favourable and the respondent's position on reimbursement of past child support was unreasonable given recent amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court awarded the applicant nominal costs, finding her offer on paternity consistent with the outcome, but also considering the respondent's self-represented status, the global nature of the applicant's costs claim, and the unnecessary proliferation of motions.

The decision also clarifies the application of Family Law Rule 24 regarding costs for earlier steps, particularly those before court officers without cost-ordering authority.

The applicant, Joanne Romanelli, sought interim fees and disbursements of $100,000 from the respondent, Mario Romanelli, in a family law dispute involving spousal support and property division claims.

The respondent disputed the length of cohabitation and the merits of the property claims, arguing that most assets were inherited.

The court found both spousal support and property claims prima facie meritorious, noting the significant economic disparity between the parties and the complexity of the respondent's financial affairs.

The court awarded $60,000 in interim fees and disbursements to the applicant, emphasizing the need to level the playing field, but reduced the requested amount due to insufficient breakdown of past costs and uncertainties in valuation estimates.