2 total
The court increased the father's child support but denied his undue hardship claim and the mother's claim for retroactive section 7 expenses.
The applicant mother sought an order increasing child support in accordance with the respondent father’s income and the Canada Child Support Guidelines (CSG), and to require the father to pay s. 7 expenses.
The respondent father cross-moved to reduce child support based on undue hardship due to supporting a second family in El Salvador and to change custody to joint custody.
The court granted the mother's request for increased child support, including retroactive arrears, and ordered the father to pay 60% of future reasonable s. 7 expenses for music and dance.
However, the court denied retroactive s. 7 expenses due to the mother's failure to consult and provide timely receipts, and rejected the father's claim for undue hardship, emphasizing that voluntary support for a second family without a legal duty does not qualify.
The father's cross-motion for joint custody was also dismissed.
The accused was acquitted of criminal harassment because the complainant testified she did not fear for her safety.
The accused was charged with criminal harassment under section 264(3) of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with the complainant through voicemail messages over several days in July 2013, following an encounter at church where the complainant made clear she wanted no further contact.
The Crown sought to prove that the conduct caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her personal safety.
At the close of the Crown's case, the defence brought an application for a directed verdict.
The court found that while the complainant was clearly upset and wanted the contact to cease, she did not testify that she feared for her safety.
The court granted the directed verdict and acquitted the accused, finding that the essential element of fear for safety required by section 264 had not been established by the Crown's evidence.
