Daniel Therrien

The father sought a mobility order to return children from Sault Ste.

Marie to Ottawa, while the mother filed a cross-motion for child support.

The court, prioritizing the children's best interests, expressed concerns over the mother's alleged substance abuse and both parties' insufficient evidence regarding care plans.

The judge ordered further detailed affidavits from both parents on specific issues, including the mother's drug history and living conditions, and the father's proposed care plan.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was invited to intervene.

An interim decision on residency and child support is pending receipt of the additional evidence.

The applicant sought an urgent order to travel with the parties' child to Iran during school holidays.

The respondent opposed, citing significant risks including Iran not being a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the child's dual Iranian and Canadian citizenship, and the lack of Canadian consular support.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant's reasons, including an ailing grandparent, insufficient to outweigh the substantial risks to the child's best interests, particularly the risk of non-return to Canada.

The court emphasized that such complex issues are better addressed at trial.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to vary a separation agreement, seeking joint custody, alternating weekly access, and a corresponding adjustment to child support under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The central dispute was whether the children resided with the father at least 40% of the time between July and December 2014.

The court found that the father met the 40% threshold during this period and ordered a set-off adjustment for child support, resulting in a reimbursement for overpayments.

Claims for retroactive section 7 expenses by both parties were dismissed due to delay and potential hardship.

The father was awarded $3,500 in costs.

A custodial parent sought child support for five children, including retroactive adjustment of support and reimbursement of special and extraordinary expenses.

The court found that the payor parent failed to comply with prior disclosure orders and provided incomplete financial information, requiring the court to rely on the best available evidence to determine income.

Applying the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court determined that the payor’s income between 2009 and 2014 warranted significantly higher table support than previously paid.

Arrears for base child support and special expenses were calculated and ordered payable on a structured schedule.

Claims of undue hardship and lack of notice for special expenses were rejected.