3 total
The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of a father's motion to change support due to his persistent non-compliance with prior court orders.
The appellant father appealed an order of the Superior Court motion judge who struck his motion to change a trial judge's order for spousal and child support, and granted the Family Responsibility Office's motion for enforcement.
The trial judge had imputed annual income of $110,000 to the father and ordered him to pay ongoing spousal and child support for two daughters and an equalization payment.
The father had failed to comply with multiple court orders, owing over $60,000 in support arrears and over $50,000 in equalization payments.
The motion judge found the father had the means to pay but chose not to prioritize court-ordered payments.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary orders.
FRO can independently enforce recovery of an NSF payment despite parties consenting to extinguish support arrears.
The applicant sought to prohibit the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) from enforcing support arrears after he and his wife consented to an order extinguishing all arrears and withdrew from the FRO.
Prior to the consent order, the applicant made a support payment that was returned for non-sufficient funds (NSF), but the FRO had already disbursed the funds to the wife.
The court dismissed the application, finding that under sections 57 and 58 of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, the FRO has an independent statutory right to continue enforcement to recover the NSF amount as reimbursement for monies paid out, regardless of the parties' private agreement to extinguish support arrears.
The construction of municipal transit facilities is an integral part of an exempt supply, precluding input tax credits.
On an appeal concerning GST treatment of municipal transit capital expenditures, the Court addressed whether the municipality made one exempt supply or separate exempt and taxable supplies under the Excise Tax Act.
The municipality argued that acquiring and constructing transit facilities constituted a distinct taxable supply to the province, supporting entitlement to input tax credits.
The Court held that the alleged facilities service was preparatory and integral to the single exempt supply of municipal transit services to the public, and that provincial funding and accountability terms did not create a separate supply of goods, services, or benefit to the province.
The statutory framework and funding agreements were characterized as cost-sharing and administration mechanisms rather than consideration for a distinct taxable supply.
The appeal was dismissed and input tax credits were denied beyond the statutory rebate scheme for exempt-supply activities.
