D. Parayeski

Supplementary reasons were issued to correct and clarify aspects of an earlier family law decision released March 14, 2013.

The court amended two portions of the earlier judgment by correcting a monetary figure and a date referenced in the reasons.

The court also clarified parenting arrangements by ordering that the mother have access to the children of the marriage for a two-week period during summer school vacations.

These supplementary reasons were provided following counsel’s appearance to address the necessary corrections and clarifications.

The responding parent sought a retroactive variation of a child support order that had been based on earlier income figures and provided for annual financial disclosure and recalculation of support.

The court held that the order’s adjustment clause should be enforced and recalculated the set‑off child support amounts based on updated income figures, including imputing income to the other parent based on concession.

Allegations that the payor’s retirement or the other parent’s business expenses justified further imputation were rejected for lack of evidence.

The court also addressed claims for extraordinary expenses, finding tutoring expenses reasonable and payable but denying reimbursement for camp expenses because prior consent required by the order had not been obtained.

The moving party sought consolidation of three simplified procedure defamation actions brought by separate plaintiffs against the same defendants, as well as an order striking certain paragraphs of the statements of claim and requiring particulars of allegations of malice.

The court held that the actions arose from the same alleged defamatory statements and involved common issues of fact and law, making consolidation appropriate under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and consistent with the principle against multiplicity of proceedings.

The court declined to strike impugned paragraphs of the pleadings, finding they provided contextual allegations relevant to the defendant’s alleged mindset in a defamation claim.

However, the court ordered the plaintiffs to provide full particulars of alleged malice pursuant to Rule 25.06(8).

Given the mixed outcome, no order as to costs was made.