Craig J. Potter

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs and the manner of payment of child support arrears following a family law trial.

The court found that the respondent, Charmaine Mohamed, was the successful party, as the applicant, Esa Hosein, was ordered to pay significant arrears of retroactive child support rather than receiving reimbursement.

The court considered the parties' conduct, including failures to make reasonable offers to settle and to provide timely financial disclosure, and ultimately ordered the applicant to pay $10,000 in costs to the respondent, subject to a deduction for a prior costs award.

The court also ordered that the arrears of child support be paid in full within 60 days, rejecting the applicant’s proposal for a payment plan.

The applicant sought to vary a 20-year-old interim child support order to terminate his support obligations for three children and to seek reimbursement for support paid after the children allegedly became disentitled.

The respondent opposed and sought an increase in child support retroactive to November 1, 2019.

The court found that the applicant had underpaid support for years due to not disclosing increased income, and that the respondent was entitled to retroactive support for the two remaining eligible children, calculated based on the applicant’s true available income, including retained corporate earnings.

The court fixed arrears and set out the process for determining costs and payment of arrears.

This case concerns a dispute over children's schooling and transportation arrangements following a unilateral change of school by the Respondent, in alleged contravention of a prior consent order for joint decision-making.

The Applicant sought to vary the existing parenting order to return the children to their previous school and for sole decision-making authority, or alternative transportation arrangements.

The Respondent cross-moved for Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement and to maintain the new school.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the Respondent's bad faith and unilateral action, ordering the children to return to their original school for the next academic year and assigning current transportation costs to the Respondent.

The applicant sought interim primary residence of the four children following separation and a unilateral move.

The respondent also sought primary care or shared custody.

The court, applying the best interests of the child test under the Children’s Law Reform Act, ordered interim shared custody on an alternate week basis.

The decision emphasized the need for stability and consistency, and discouraged parental conflict and "affidavit-wars," noting that both parents had demonstrated the ability to care for the children.

The Office of the Children’s Lawyer was appointed.

This case involved a contested passing of accounts for an estate and under a Continuing Power of Attorney for Property.

The applicant, a sibling of the respondent, challenged several expenditures made by the respondent as executrix and attorney for their deceased father.

The court found that the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence regarding a $57,000 gift from the father, disallowed a $5,028.50 payment for a furnace and air conditioner, a $115 payment for a marriage license, and $3,362.64 in unexplained US dollar cash withdrawals.

The court also adjusted caregiving payments to another sibling, allowing $11,200 but requiring repayment of $6,400.

The respondent was ordered to repay a total of $71,906.14 to the estate.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a separation agreement dated May 8, 2008, seeking increased child support and contribution from the respondent father toward section 7 post-secondary education expenses for three adult children.

The respondent father's employment was terminated in 2012, and he subsequently obtained new employment at a lower income.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined the father's income for support purposes.

The court ordered the father to pay child support for the youngest child and to contribute 67% of post-secondary education expenses for two of the children, with retroactive arrears to be paid after ongoing support obligations ceased.

Spousal support was adjusted based on the father's current income, with provisions for further adjustment upon termination of child support obligations.