Drew L. Bowyer

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary child support, seeking to impute income to the respondent father who had been unemployed for over ten years.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for retroactive child support, alleging the applicant failed to disclose her increasing income and worked undisclosed jobs.

The court imputed income to both parties: to the applicant for 'under the table' restaurant work and a home business, and to the respondent at an ODSP-equivalent level.

Finding the applicant's failure to disclose her income tax returns as ordered constituted blameworthy conduct, the court ordered retroactive child support payable by the applicant from 2015.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2016 consent order to allow her to relocate the parties' two children from Cambridge to Waterford in Norfolk County.

The mother had previously moved the children without consent and was found in contempt, but argued she had no choice due to severe financial hardship and the offer of employment and housing from her family in Norfolk County.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the significant economic and emotional benefits available to the mother and children in Waterford.

The court concluded that the mother was the primary parent and that the relocation was in the children's best interests, granting the move and establishing a new parenting schedule.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the issue of costs after the successful party had made multiple offers to settle for amounts less than the ultimate judgment.

The court found that the trial was unnecessary in light of the earlier offers and that the successful party was therefore entitled to substantial indemnity costs for preparation and attendance at trial.

Because the moving party failed to provide docket details with the original costs submissions, the court independently calculated allowable hours for trial and preparation.

The court fixed legal fees, law clerk time, and disbursements and applied HST to the approved legal fees.

The parties lived in an unmarried domestic arrangement and jointly operated several motel properties over many years.

Following their separation, the plaintiff claimed an interest in the properties based on unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The court found that the parties operated as a partnership, contributing equal effort and capital.

The plaintiff was awarded a 50% interest in the Fairview Motel, a 50% share of the proceeds from the sale of the Queensway Motel, a 25% interest in the Hillcrest property, and reimbursement for joint funds unilaterally withdrawn by the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim for spousal support was dismissed.