Cheryl Hodgkin

In a supplementary judgment following a family law trial, the court determined child and spousal support.

The applicant sought child support and the respondent sought spousal support.

The central issue was determining the respondent's income, as she had been a stay-at-home parent and received extensive, ongoing financial gifts from her parents throughout the marriage and post-separation.

The court imputed an annual income of $80,000 to the respondent based on her underemployment and the consistent, substantial gifts from her parents that covered housing, vehicles, and living expenses.

The respondent was ordered to pay child support based on this imputed income, and was awarded spousal support at the low end of the Guidelines ($1,000 per month) for seven years.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for parenting time after the parties separated and the respondent mother allegedly denied him access to their six-year-old child.

The court considered whether the matter met the definition of urgency under the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession regarding the COVID-19 pandemic court suspension.

The triage judge concluded the matter met the definition of urgency because it involved an allegation of wrongful retention of a child, and ordered the motion to proceed on the limited issue of access.