Daniel R. Furlan

The mother brought a motion to change a final order to vary child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support.

The father argued the adult child had repudiated their relationship and sought to terminate child support, or alternatively reduce it based on his decreased income.

The court found the father failed to prove repudiation.

The court imputed the father's income at $95,000 due to incomplete financial disclosure regarding his business, and set the mother's income at $58,819 for child support and $45,000 for spousal support.

The father was ordered to pay his proportionate share of the child's final year of college expenses, and child support was ordered to continue until September 2021 to allow a transition period after graduation.

Spousal support was increased to $1,495 per month commencing after child support terminates.

The Respondent Father brought two motions: one for extensive disclosure, including solicitor-client communications and forensic audits of email accounts, and another for the removal of the Applicant Mother's counsel due to alleged conflict and misconduct.

The court dismissed most of the Father's disclosure requests, finding them to be fishing expeditions lacking relevance or proportionality, and protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The court also dismissed the request to remove the Mother's counsel, finding no conflict of interest or sufficient evidence to warrant disqualification.

A limited disclosure order for specific emails between the Mother and a non-party was granted, and a schedule for witness lists and affidavits of documents was set.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order dated July 22, 2015, seeking to terminate child support for two adult sons or reduce support amounts.

The applicant mother opposed termination and sought a retroactive increase in table child support due to undisclosed income increases.

The court found that the father had failed to make required annual financial disclosures.

The court suspended support for the older son (Bradley) pending proof of academic success, maintained support for the younger son (Ryan) with adjusted amounts, and ordered retroactive adjustments to table child support based on the father's actual income.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home following a dispute, after which she left the home with the children.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession or, alternatively, a nesting arrangement.

The court found that the children were not at risk of harm and that both parents were involved caregivers.

The court dismissed both motions for exclusive possession and ordered a temporary nesting arrangement where the parents would rotate occupying the home with the children.

The applicant father and respondent mother disputed custody and access of their six-year-old son following their separation.

The father sought joint custody and maximum access, while the mother sought sole custody.

The court found that the parents lacked the ability to communicate effectively, making joint custody contrary to the child's best interests.

Sole custody was awarded to the mother.

The court ordered a generous access schedule tailored to the father's rotating shift work.

The father was also ordered to pay ongoing child support, retroactive child support, and a fixed monthly amount for section 7 extracurricular expenses.

Motion to change custody and support arrangements for a six-year-old child.

The applicant sought to reduce the respondent's weeknight access from weekly overnight to alternate Wednesdays until 8:00 p.m., while the respondent sought to reinstate weekly overnight Wednesday access.

The court granted weekly overnight Wednesday access to the respondent, finding it in the child's best interests.

The court also addressed transportation responsibilities, exchange locations, child support base amount, and section 7 expense contributions.

The respondent's income was imputed at $109,000 annually for child support purposes, resulting in increased monthly support.

Section 7 expenses for after-school care were ordered to be shared equally between the parties.

The court determined child support payable from January 1, 2010 onwards, the income basis for that support, and outstanding arrears.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent based on past earnings, arguing he was wilfully underemployed.

The respondent argued his employment decisions were reasonable and support should be based on actual income.

The court found the respondent was not wilfully underemployed, though he was slow to seek alternative employment when positions proved unproductive.

The court attributed $42,500 income for 2010 and used actual income thereafter, resulting in minimal arrears of $69.00.