Constance Nielsen

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered motions to set aside an administrative dismissal of an appeal and to extend the time to perfect the appeal, as well as a cross-motion for conditions to protect assets pending appeal.

The court granted both the motion and cross-motion, reinstating the appeal and imposing conditions to address the risk of asset dissipation.

The decision discusses the relevant factors for setting aside an administrative dismissal and for granting an extension of time, including the merits of the appeal, the explanation for delay, and the best interests of the children.

The court also imposed specific conditions to ensure transparency and protect the respondent’s interests.

The parties separated in 2019 and entered into a final settlement regarding property and spousal support in 2020, but child support remained unresolved.

The mother sought retroactive and ongoing child support, while the father brought a motion to change the parenting order to shared parenting and sought to set aside the property settlement.

The court found that the father had engaged in significant family violence, coercive control, and physical discipline, which constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and curtailed the father's parenting time, making its expansion conditional on his completion of the Brayden Nurturing Parent Program and individual therapy.

The father was also ordered to pay $99,432.23 in retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, and his request to set aside the property settlement was dismissed.

The applicant sought to vary a 2008 child support order to $0, retroactively to January 1, 2016, based on alleged unemployment.

The respondent opposed.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in a confirmation hearing of a provisional order from Alberta, declined to confirm the reduction.

The court found the applicant failed to establish a material change in circumstances due to grossly inadequate financial disclosure, lack of evidence regarding job termination or search efforts, and a history of non-compliance with support obligations.

The court imputed income to the applicant, dismissed his variation application, and ordered the original 2008 child support order to continue in full force, awarding costs to the respondent.