C. Lafreniere

Following a motion to change child support, the court determined costs under Family Rule 24 and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant father was substantially successful in obtaining an order reducing child support to nil and fixing arrears payable by instalments.

Although the respondent mother argued she lacked the ability to pay costs, the court found that she ignored the litigation process and failed to engage with settlement opportunities.

The court held that the successful party is presumptively entitled to costs and that the amount sought represented only a small portion of the applicant’s actual legal expenses.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the applicant, with child support arrears permitted to be set off against that amount.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order to reduce child support based on a material change in circumstances arising from serious health issues and loss of employment resulting in disability income.

The respondent mother filed responding materials but did not attend the hearing.

The court accepted evidence that the father’s income had declined from approximately $60,000 at the time of the original order to $9,600 annually in long-term disability benefits.

The court declined to average the father’s income under s. 17 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and instead relied on actual line 150 income under s. 16.

Child support was reduced to zero effective January 1, 2014, and arrears for prior years were fixed at $995.98 payable in monthly instalments.

The mother appealed two orders: a temporary order denying her request for an adjournment, and a final order granting summary judgment to the Children's Aid Society on a status review application.

The summary judgment order continued the placement of the children with their father subject to Society supervision and denied the mother access.

The mother argued she was denied procedural fairness and that there were genuine issues for trial regarding her compliance with previous court orders requiring mental health treatment.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeals, finding the motion judge made no errors of law or fact, the mother failed to provide evidence of compliance with the previous orders, and there was no genuine issue for trial.

Multiple defendants brought motions seeking security for costs against a plaintiff who was ordinarily resident outside Ontario in two related civil actions.

The plaintiff argued impecuniosity and contended that an order for security would effectively drive him from the litigation.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold required to establish impecuniosity because he provided outdated financial disclosure and did not produce complete, current documentation regarding income, assets, liabilities, and borrowing capacity.

Finding the requested security amounts reasonable given the anticipated complexity and duration of the litigation, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in both actions, failing which the proceedings would be stayed.