Davine Damine Burton

The appellant appealed an order granting the respondent summary judgment, which dismissed his motion to change a previous child support order.

The appellant argued the previous order did not comply with the Child Support Guidelines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the original judge was entitled to make an order based on Minutes of Settlement even if it deviated from the Guidelines, provided reasonable arrangements were made.

To vary the order, the appellant had to show a material change in circumstances, which he failed to do.

This is a costs endorsement following a four-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a thirteen-year-old child.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $34,224, while the respondent (father) sought to limit costs to $11,500 payable at $250 per month.

The court found the mother was the successful party based on the offers to settle and trial positions.

The father's litigation behaviour was found to be frequently unreasonable, though not rising to the level of bad faith.

The court considered factors under the Family Law Rules including the complexity of the case, the parties' behaviour, counsel's rates, and time spent.

The court fixed costs at $18,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $300 per month starting November 1, 2017, with acceleration provisions for default.

Motion to change parenting and support arrangements for a 13-year-old child.

Both parents sought modifications to a 2011 custody order granting sole custody to the mother with alternate weekend and Tuesday evening access to the father.

The father sought shared parenting time with the child spending more time with him; the mother sought to increase the father's parenting time while maintaining her custody and relocating access exchanges to Alliston, Ontario where she had moved.

The court found material changes in circumstances and granted sole custody to the mother with modified access arrangements, including Thursday mid-week visits in Alliston and alternate weekend access.

The court rejected the father's request for shared parenting, finding concerns about his judgment, behavior, and ability to prioritize the child's needs.

A custody and access trial involving two children where the father sought joint custody and specified access, while the mother sought sole custody with restricted access.

The court found a history of domestic violence, high conflict between the parties, and the father's difficult courtroom behaviour.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, ordered supervised access for the first six visits followed by limited unsupervised access, and addressed child support, section 7 expenses, communication protocols, and a restraining order.

The father's personality and inability to cooperate with professionals were significant factors in the decision.