Carol J. Craig

The applicant mother sought to enforce and vary a 2008 child support order, including retroactive adjustments for child support and section 7 expenses for two adult children.

The respondent father disputed the retroactive application of support principles, arguing one child was no longer a "child of the marriage" when the motion was initiated.

The court characterized the mother's motion primarily as one of enforcement due to the father's failure to comply with financial disclosure obligations under the existing order.

The court determined the father's income for various years, his province of residence for child support table calculations, and the termination dates for child support for both children.

The court also addressed post-secondary education expenses, excluding bus passes, and found the father failed to prove his contributions.

For section 7 expenses, the court emphasized the requirement for advance written consent for each expense, finding the mother had disregarded this process.

This family law trial addressed custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following a contentious separation.

The court found significant credibility issues with both parents, particularly regarding their financial disclosures and conduct impacting the children's relationship with the father.

The court granted sole custody and primary residence to the mother, established a detailed access schedule, imputed income to both parents for support calculations, and ordered an equalization payment and post-separation credits in favour of the mother.

Mortgages unilaterally registered by the father against the matrimonial home were set aside, and both properties were ordered sold.

Lump sum spousal support was declined, but future spousal support was reserved.

Security for child support was ordered from the father's share of property sale proceeds.

This was an interim support motion where the applicant sought child and spousal support from the respondent.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support and the respondent obligated to pay child support.

Despite the respondent's claim of lower income, the court was not convinced, noting his operational businesses and substantial retained incomes under his sole control.

The court fixed the respondent's yearly income, on a without prejudice basis, at $130,000 and ordered him to pay child support of $1,781.00 per month and spousal support of $2,000.00 per month, retroactive to April 1, 2016.

The Applicant successfully moved to take over the parties’ rental property and use its income for her and their children's support.

The Respondent's cross-motion to reduce support to zero was dismissed.

The court found the Respondent behaved unreasonably by refusing to pay court-ordered support, blocking the Applicant’s access to funds, and failing to disclose significant financial information.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant on a substantial indemnity scale.

The applicant brought a motion to vary and replace several paragraphs of a previous custody and access order and to obtain an order preventing the respondent from signing children out of school without the applicant's consent.

The court found the respondent had repeatedly breached the existing order by taking children out of school early and keeping them home without justification.

All requested amendments were granted to clarify access times, specify return protocols for sick children, and restrict the respondent's ability to remove children from school outside of scheduled access.

This trial decision addresses divorce, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following a difficult marriage.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to intentional under-employment and an unreasonable job search, while finding the applicant's pursuit of a teaching degree reasonable.

Retroactive child and spousal support were ordered, with spousal support reviewable upon the applicant's graduation.

The court also resolved disputes regarding a matrimonial home deposit and property valuation for equalization, awarding prejudgment interest to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings or, in the alternative, for possession of a jointly held rental property due to the respondent's failure to pay court-ordered child and spousal support.

The respondent sought to reduce his support obligations to zero, claiming an inability to work due to depression.

The court rejected the respondent's evidence of disability as unreliable and noted his failure to disclose significant financial transactions.

Relying on Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court granted the applicant possession of the rental property to manage and receive income, ordering the respondent to vacate the premises.