David A. Maslak

The mother brought a motion to change seeking ongoing spousal support and child support for two children, including a contribution to the adult daughter's student loan debt.

The court reduced and ordered a termination date for spousal support, noting the mother's ability to increase her income and the father's post-separation efforts.

The court dismissed the claim for the adult daughter's student debt, finding she was employed full-time, had not consulted the father before incurring the debt, and was inappropriately recruited by the mother to support the claim.

Child support for the minor son was updated based on the father's income.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive variation of child and spousal support based on a significant increase in the respondent father's income.

The court found a material change in circumstances, as the father's income had increased from $96,000 to over $290,000.

Child support was varied retroactively to 2015 due to the father's failure to disclose his increased income.

Spousal support was also increased, but only retroactively to the date the application was commenced, with a minimum-wage income imputed to the mother.

The applicant father brought a motion to change an interim access order for his daughter, seeking to expand access from two hours on Saturday to alternate weekends with overnight stays.

The respondent mother had repeatedly failed to comply with prior access orders, resulting in multiple contempt findings and imprisonment.

The court found the mother in contempt for non-compliance with the January 25, 2013 and March 8, 2013 orders.

The court granted a progressively expanding access schedule over a ten-month period, imposed a suspended 30-day imprisonment sanction, and issued a police assistance order to enforce access.

The court also imposed communication restrictions and a restraining order limiting the father's proximity to the mother's residence and workplace.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for damages arising from sexual contact in 1972.

The defendant sought to add the plaintiff's parents and former boyfriend as third parties, arguing they were responsible for the plaintiff's damages due to subsequent abuse.

The motions judge dismissed the motion to add the third parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, holding that section 1 of the Negligence Act only permits claims for contribution and indemnity between concurrent wrongdoers, not independent tortfeasors whose acts occurred at different times.