Charley Toby Levitan

The respondent father brought a motion for interim child support, including retroactive support for a period when he had primary care of the children after restricting the applicant mother's parenting time due to her impaired driving arrest.

The mother opposed the retroactive claim, arguing it would reward the father's unilateral self-help, and questioned his ongoing entitlement due to his fluctuating self-employment income.

The court granted retroactive support effective from the date the father gave formal notice of his claim, finding that the children should not be penalized for the father's conduct.

Ongoing offset support and proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses were also ordered based on the parties' 2021 stated incomes.

The Applicant mother sought a temporary parenting order to resume a fixed parenting schedule, including overnight time, after two impaired driving incidents with children in the car.

The Respondent father had largely withheld the children due to safety concerns related to her alcohol abuse.

The court considered the children's best interests, the status quo, and the mother's efforts towards sobriety.

The court granted a modified parenting schedule with overnight access but imposed strict conditions, including supervision by the maternal grandfather for two months and mandatory use of the Soberlink Alcohol Monitoring System.

The applicant wife sought equalization of net family property and spousal support, alleging the respondent husband had substantial unreported cash income from his jewellery business.

The court rejected the applicant's expert evidence on hidden income and accepted the respondent's business valuation.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust to the matrimonial home and a gifted property.

Income was imputed to both parties for support purposes.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment and ongoing spousal support, with adjustments made for previous advances and overpayments.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues from a family law trial, including the precise calculation of retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, the set-off of support arrears against an equalization payment, and whether post-judgment interest should accrue on the equalization payment.

The court adopted the applicant's methodology for support calculations, which assigned full responsibility for the children's section 7 expenses to the respondent.

Retroactive support arrears owed by the respondent were set off against the equalization payment owed by the applicant.

The court declined to award post-judgment interest on the equalization payment, finding it just given the equalization payment's origin in a non-interest-bearing debt owed by the respondent to a corporate entity.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support, interim spousal support, and an order striking the respondent's pleadings for failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court ordered that the respondent's pleadings regarding support be struck if he fails to provide the outstanding corporate financial statements and tax returns by a specified date.

The court dismissed the claim for interim spousal support, finding insufficient evidence for a compensatory claim and noting that the applicant had earned a high income post-separation, negating a non-compensatory claim three years post-separation.

The court imputed an income of $51,000 to the applicant based on a vocational assessment and increased the respondent's child support obligation to $800 per month for their shared custody arrangement, along with a proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The Applicant sought interim and retroactive spousal support and retroactive Section 7 expenses.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for accounting and questioning, and sought dismissal or stay of the Applicant's motion due to non-disclosure or pending a separate action.

The court dismissed the Applicant's claims for retroactive Section 7 expenses and both retroactive and ongoing interim spousal support, citing issues with entitlement, quantum, delay, and conflicting financial disclosure.

The Respondent's request to dismiss or stay the Applicant's motion was also dismissed, but the Applicant was ordered to provide comprehensive financial disclosure.

The parties entered into a separation agreement in 2005 to share the children's special expenses equally instead of following the Child Support Guidelines.

The appellant father defaulted in 2008 and sought to terminate his contractual obligations, claiming a material change in circumstances due to declining income and an inability to liquidate capital.

The application judge dismissed his request, finding the circumstances were foreseeable when the agreement was signed.

The Superior Court and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that foreseeability is central to the test for varying contractual child support obligations.