Diane Gillies

This decision addresses enforcement of child support arrears through a default hearing under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The court considered the payor’s financial circumstances, credibility, and ability to pay arrears totaling $213,998.82.

The payor, who had been absent from Canada for many years and had significant assets in Ghana, was found not credible regarding his financial disclosures and intentions.

The court ordered a structured payment plan with committal terms for non-payment and required the surrender of the payor’s passports as security to prevent absconding, balancing enforcement with the payor’s rights and health claims.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought to enforce significant child support arrears against the payor.

The payor claimed inability to pay a lump sum and proposed a reduced payment plan.

The court found the payor lacked credibility regarding his income and financial disclosure, and had deliberately delayed proceedings and prioritized his own interests.

The court ordered immediate and annual lump sum payments towards arrears, ongoing child support, and imposed committal terms for non-compliance, holding an immediate warrant in abeyance to allow for payment.

This endorsement follows a default hearing where the payor, Bhojnarine Ramgopaul, was ordered to pay child support arrears and faced committal.

The court notes that Ramgopaul made the required immediate lump sum payments and ongoing support payments for both the Sahid and Bhansingh cases.

Consequently, the warrants of committal issued on November 8, 2024, are rescinded, and the default hearings are declared complete.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought two default hearings against the payor for child support arrears in two separate cases (Sahid and Bhansingh).

The cases were heard together.

The payor disputed his ability to pay and sought no committal terms.

The court found the payor lacked credibility regarding his income and financial disclosure, noting his cash business and intertwined finances with his parents.

The court applied the statutory presumptions and powers under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, and considered factors for ordering imprisonment.

Despite the payor's claims, the court found he had the ability to earn significantly more and to make substantial payments.

The court ordered immediate lump sum payments towards arrears with committal terms, followed by a structured payment plan for the remaining arrears and ongoing support, also with committal terms.

The warrants of committal were held in abeyance to allow the payor to make payments.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought to enforce support arrears against the payor.

The payor claimed inability to pay and requested a different support order.

The court found the payor not credible, noting his chronic failure to provide full financial disclosure and that his financial difficulties were self-created.

Applying statutory presumptions and the Hennessy factors, the court determined the payor had not rebutted the presumption of ability to pay ongoing support and significant arrears.

A final default order was issued, fixing arrears, imposing a payment plan with committal terms, including an immediate 90-day committal held in abeyance pending an initial payment, and ordering ongoing support payments with committal terms for default.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought a default order against the payor for child support arrears of $23,537.84.

The payor, self-represented, requested a one-year deferral to organize his finances.

The court found the payor failed to rebut the presumption of ability to pay, was not credible, and had a poor payment history and inadequate financial disclosure.

The court ordered the payor to pay the arrears through an immediate $5,000 payment and subsequent lump sums, with committal terms for default, and to continue ongoing child support payments with committal terms.

The appellant lawyer sought the proceeds of his client's after-the-event insurance policy to cover disbursements incurred in a motor vehicle action.

The client was a person under disability represented by a litigation guardian.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the contingency fee agreement was unenforceable because it lacked court approval and was signed by the incapable client without the litigation guardian's involvement.

The Court also upheld the dismissal of the appellant's motion for a charging order, finding the appellant merely acted as an insurance intermediary and did not recover or preserve property in the litigation.

A father sought a refraining order to prevent the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from directing suspension of his driver's licence due to child support arrears of $30,352.93.

The father had paid no child support since a 2012 order requiring $426 monthly payments.

He proposed to begin payments of $426 plus $200 monthly toward arrears starting January 1, 2019, and undertook to bring a motion to change the support order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father failed to come to court with clean hands despite having steady employment and the ability to pay.

The applicant sought a refraining order to prevent the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from directing the suspension of his driver's licence pursuant to a Final Notice dated November 1, 2018.

The applicant had previously obtained a refraining order in August 2017 on terms requiring him to bring a motion to change the underlying support order and make specified monthly payments.

The applicant failed to comply with these terms, causing the refraining order to terminate automatically.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a refraining order in response to a Final Notice, as the statutory framework under Part V of the Family Arrears and Support Enforcement Act permits refraining orders only in response to a First Notice.

The motion was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This costs endorsement followed motions where the applicant sought to change a spousal support order and the respondent sought to strike the applicant's motion and other relief.

The court largely dismissed both the respondent's strike-out motion and the applicant's interim relief motion.

Neither party met their settlement offers.

The respondent sought costs, arguing partial success, but the court found her strike-out motion largely ill-advised and unnecessary, failing to resolve issues or significantly advance the matter.

Consequently, no costs were awarded to either party.

The Applicant sought to change a spousal support order and reduce costs enforceable as support, citing bankruptcy and the time-limited nature of the support.

The Respondent sought to strike the Applicant's motion, obtain security for costs, and lift a stay on her cross-appeal.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion to strike the Applicant's pleadings, her request for security for costs, and her request to lift the stay of her cross-appeal.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the Applicant's claim to reduce costs enforceable as support and dismissed the Applicant's request for an interim stay of the support and costs orders.

The court declined to make an interim determination on the termination of ongoing spousal support, leaving it for the main motion to change.

The applicant payor brought a motion for a refraining order against the Family Responsibility Office and a motion to change a final child support order.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the applicant's signature on his affidavit and financial statement had been forged, likely by his counsel.

Despite the procedural irregularities, the court found that the children were no longer eligible for support as of 2010 and the applicant had actually overpaid.

Relying on the primary objective of the Family Law Rules, the court dispensed with service on the recipient and assignee, granted the refraining order, and terminated the child support order retroactively.

The court addressed two consolidated family responsibility cases involving arrears of child support.

Default orders had been made on January 21, 2016, committing the respondent father to jail for 90 days or until payment of $3,500 in each case, with the warrants of committal held in abeyance.

On the return date of January 29, 2016, the parties advised that the father had paid the ordered sums.

The court rescinded the warrants of committal.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought default hearings against a family law lawyer for non-payment of child support arrears in two cases.

The respondent owed $15,073.30 in arrears in the Camposano case and $19,462.99 in arrears in the Adema case.

Despite multiple court orders and extensions, the respondent failed to provide adequate financial disclosure, file disputes, or make voluntary payments.

The court found the respondent had the ability to pay at least a portion of the arrears and ongoing support obligations.

The respondent's conduct demonstrated willful and deliberate disregard for court orders.

The court imposed committal orders with specific payment milestones as a last resort enforcement mechanism.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) appealed a costs award made against it for failing to pay out a surplus of funds accumulated under a family court support order.

The motion judge had found FRO's retention of the funds unreasonable and contrary to its statutory duties.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that FRO was not a party to the proceedings and therefore could not be subject to a costs award under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Furthermore, the court found that FRO's policy of not paying out surplus funds without a court order was not unreasonable.

The union grieved the employer's failure to implement a Memorandum of Settlement regarding the grievor's workplace accommodation.

The settlement required the grievor to undergo an independent medical examination (IME).

The grievor objected to the employer's use of an insurance company to facilitate the IME and the broad scope of the medical release form.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered that the grievor be permitted to seek a referral from his family doctor to a specialist for the IME.

The Board further ordered that if this process failed, the parties must cooperate to select a medical expert without using the insurance company as a facilitator, and the release form must be approved by the union and the grievor.