Colin J. Thurston

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's second Motion to Change a final child support order.

The applicant sought to reduce child support and rescind arrears, arguing a material change in circumstances and new evidence.

The court found no new evidence that was not available at the original trial and no material change in circumstances, as the applicant remained intentionally unemployed.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the applicant's Motion to Change, and ordered her to pay all outstanding costs and obtain leave before any further proceedings related to child support due to persistent non-compliance with court orders.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant mother's Motion to Change a final child support order.

The final order had imputed an income of $60,000 to the mother after she failed to attend the trial or present evidence.

On the motion to change, the mother provided new evidence regarding her unemployment, the loss of her insurance broker's license, and the loss of her driver's license.

The court found this new evidence was sufficient to raise a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether there was a material change in circumstances.

The father's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, but no costs were awarded to the mother due to her prior conduct.

The applicant mother sought an order for primary residence, final decision-making authority, and permission to relocate with the parties' 10-year-old daughter from Aberfoyle to Ajax to live with her new partner.

The respondent father opposed the move and sought an equal shared parenting arrangement and joint custody.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, finding that the move would be highly disruptive to the child and would sever her ties to her community, school, extended family, and father.

The court ordered joint custody and an equal week-about shared parenting schedule, finding that both parents were capable and loving, and that maximum contact with both parents was in the child's best interests.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis in accordance with the shared parenting arrangement.

This endorsement addresses costs following a judgment in favour of the respondent, Mr. Delmoro, where the applicant, Ms. Thomson, was ordered to pay child support and her claims were dismissed.

Mr. Delmoro sought fixed costs of $17,151.72, while Ms. Thomson proposed $6,936.33.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting the presumption of costs for the successful party.

Ms. Thomson's conduct was deemed unreasonable due to non-compliance with interim orders, failure to withdraw a meritless claim, and lack of settlement offers.

The court found Mr. Delmoro's requested costs reasonable and fixed them at $17,151.72, with $15,000 specifically allocated to child support enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant, Joan Thomson, sought spousal support and a declaration of unjust enrichment.

The respondent, Thomas Victor Delmoro, sought child support.

The parties, who cohabited for 27 years and have two children, separated in 2014.

The applicant failed to comply with multiple court orders for disclosure and did not attend trial, leading to the dismissal of her claims.

The court imputed an income of $60,000 per year to the applicant for child support purposes, based on her earning history and failure to provide financial information or explanation for unemployment.

Retroactive child support was ordered from April 1, 2014, and ongoing support for the remaining child, along with a contribution to Section 7 expenses.

Former spouses brought competing motions to change and enforce a prior consent divorce order concerning child support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent sought quantification of the moving party’s share of post‑secondary education expenses for an adult child so the amount could be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office.

The moving party sought reimbursement for certain education expenses and a variation of ongoing child support for the younger child based on alleged material changes.

The court held that the parties’ consent order requiring equal sharing of section 7 expenses prevailed over proportional income arguments and assessed which claimed expenses were legitimate.

The court quantified each party’s obligations, reduced ongoing child support following the older child ceasing to be a child of the marriage, and ordered a net payment after credits.