3 total
The court imposed a stepped payment schedule with jail terms for deliberate support order defaults.
This is a default enforcement hearing under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996 arising from a support payor's failure to pay court-ordered child and spousal support.
The payor accumulated arrears of $1,105,390.77 as of April 1, 2018, stemming from a 2007 trial order requiring $5,475 per month in child support and $4,340 per month in spousal support based on imputed annual income of $344,261.
The payor claimed inability to pay due to business closure in 2008 and mental health issues.
The court found the payor had deliberately and willfully avoided his support obligations over many years, had not complied with court orders, and had intentionally underemployed himself.
The court rejected the payor's claims of inability to pay and imposed a stepped payment schedule with jail terms for default.
The court denied a motion to stay a default order for spousal support arrears pending appeal, rejecting the argument that a Gladue report was required.
The appellant sought a stay of a default order requiring payment of spousal support arrears and ongoing support, or incarceration, pending an appeal.
The motion for a stay was brought under the three-part RJR-McDonald test.
The appellant argued that his s. 35 Constitution Act, 1982 rights were infringed by Justice Malcolm's failure to order a Gladue report at the default hearing.
The court found no serious question to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the support recipient would suffer greater harm if the stay were granted.
The motion to stay was denied.
The court ordered a payor with $199,427 in support arrears to make substantial lump sum payments under threat of imprisonment after rejecting his claims of impecuniosity.
A default hearing brought by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office seeking enforcement of arrears of child and spousal support totaling $199,427 as of July 30, 2014.
The payor claimed inability to pay due to depression following his 2008 separation and argued for a motion to change the support order.
The court found the payor's evidence regarding his financial circumstances and the source of substantial lump sum payments ($49,600 and $5,000) made under court order to be entirely lacking in credibility.
The court concluded the payor had demonstrated access to significant funds and was deliberately obfuscating his financial situation.
The court ordered the payor to pay $50,000 within 21 days, annual payments of $50,000 until arrears were satisfied, and ongoing monthly support of $3,644, with imprisonment as the consequence for default.
