Christopher G. Rutherford

The Applicant sought to vary a 2013 Final Order regarding parenting and child support, primarily due to a change to an equal timesharing arrangement for their child.

The motion also addressed life insurance to secure child support and minor adjustments to parenting provisions.

The court granted the motion with modifications, adjusting child support based on a set-off amount reflecting current incomes and equal timesharing, and imposing mutual life insurance obligations on both parties, with specific coverage amounts and annual reductions.

Minor parenting provisions were also updated to reflect the current living arrangement.

The applicant sought costs following the respondent's unsuccessful motion to change, where the court had dismissed the respondent's request to vary child support and imputed income to him.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the majority of issues, particularly the financial issues, which were complex due to the respondent's deliberate attempts to mislead the court about his income.

The court determined the respondent acted in bad faith by consciously attempting to conceal his actual income to reduce his child support obligation.

Considering the applicant's success and the respondent's bad faith, the court ordered the respondent to pay $20,000 in costs, with $10,000 enforceable as child support through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant and respondent, divorced parents of two children, brought cross-motions to change a prior divorce order regarding child support and access.

The respondent sought to vary child support obligations retroactively, terminate life insurance security, and modify access, citing a material change in circumstances due to health issues and reduced income.

The applicant opposed these variations and sought to restrict the respondent's travel with the children due to flight risk concerns.

The court found the respondent not credible regarding his income and lifestyle, imputing an income of $82,000 for most years, except for 2015 where a reduced income was imputed due to health.

The court dismissed the respondent's request to vary child support arrears and penalty clauses.

It also denied the respondent's request for international travel with the children, confining access to Canada due to flight risk, but increased the respondent's regular and summer access time.

The obligation for life insurance was replaced with a first charge on the respondent's estate.

The respondent, Brent, sought to vary child and spousal support, post-secondary education provisions, and life insurance obligations retroactively due to job loss.

The applicant, Tracey, opposed these variations and sought to impute income to Brent and an order for lump sum spousal support.

The court found Brent's job loss constituted a material change in circumstances and declined to impute income to him.

Child support was retroactively adjusted, resulting in an overpayment by Brent.

Post-secondary expenses were to be shared proportionally based on current incomes, reducing Brent's contribution.

Spousal support was set to zero from January 1, 2014, onwards, though entitlement was not terminated.

Tracey's request for lump sum spousal support was denied, and life insurance obligations were significantly reduced.