Elliott Braganza

In supplementary reasons to a trial judgment, the court addressed submissions from both parties regarding alleged arithmetic and typographical errors.

The court issued a corrigendum to correct the proportional sharing percentage for 2021 section 7 expenses, a typographical error regarding the respondent's income, the termination date of spousal support, and the termination date of child support.

The court declined to adjust the respondent's employment income for 2019 and 2021, and left the dispute over the Family Responsibility Office balance to the usual administrative process.

The court issued a corrigendum to amend paragraphs 170, 228, and 233 of the Reasons for Judgment dated September 5, 2023.

The amendments corrected the termination dates and calculations for spousal support and child support, noting the applicant's inability to pay spousal support after July 2021 and confirming the end of child support obligations as of June 2023.

The moving party previously brought a motion to change child support, which resulted in an order varying his child support obligations.

The court subsequently noted an error in the reasons for decision regarding the commencement date of the varied support.

The court issued amended reasons to correct the commencement date from June 1, 2011, to May 1, 2021, which affected the calculation of arrears.

The parties were permitted to submit new costs submissions based on the corrected outcome.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a 2011 final order, seeking to vary ongoing child support and retroactively reduce or eliminate child support arrears and section 7 expense contributions.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court applied the framework from Colucci v. Colucci, finding that while the father's mental health constituted a material change in circumstances, he failed to provide effective notice of his income changes.

The court declined to retroactively reduce arrears prior to the formal notice date (May 2021) due to the father's delay, conduct, and the children's ongoing need for support.

Ongoing child support was varied from the formal notice date based on the father's current income, but the significant arrears accumulated prior to May 2021 were not reduced or rescinded.

In the context of a motion to change seeking to relocate the children to the United States, both parties agreed that the Office of the Children's Lawyer should be involved.

The respondent mother sought a Voice of the Child report, while the applicant father sought a full section 112 assessment.

The court ordered a Voice of the Child report, finding that the children (aged 14 and 10) were able to express their views and that the broader questions raised by the father were matters for the court to decide, not a clinician.

The mother was awarded costs of $3,991.50.

The plaintiff sought over $20,000 in enforcement costs, including private investigator fees and legal costs, after obtaining a judgment and cost order against the defendants, who failed to make payments.

The court found it had jurisdiction to award costs beyond Rule 60.19 but deemed the private investigator fees and associated legal costs unreasonable and unnecessary, as an examination in aid of execution was a less expensive and available alternative.

The court awarded $7,139.60 plus HST for execution costs, including property/corporate searches, garnishment issuance, process server fees, and a portion of legal fees.

No costs were awarded for the motion itself due to mixed success.

The appellant dog kennel appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it negligent in caring for the respondent's dog, which suffered broken teeth, weight loss, and dehydration during a five-day stay.

The kennel argued the trial judge erred in determining the standard of care without expert evidence and in finding causation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly considered the kennel's representations of having a veterinarian on site and 24/7 monitoring, and reasonably relied on the factual testimony of the on-site veterinarian.

The court found no error in the trial judge's inference that the kennel's failure to inspect the dog or contact the owner caused the injuries.