The moving party sought to terminate all past, present and future child and spousal support obligations fixed by an earlier final order that had imputed income after repeated disclosure failures.
The court held that a motion to change cannot be used as a collateral appeal from the original support order and that the moving party bore the onus of proving a material change in circumstances under s. 17 of the Divorce Act and the Guidelines.
Applying the framework in Colucci, the court found the alleged post-order income decline and inability to work were not established by reliable, complete and credible evidence, and that the moving party remained affected by the same concerns of intentional underemployment and inadequate disclosure that grounded the original imputation.
The court admitted Linked-In profile evidence, gave little or no weight to cursory medical notes, found blameworthy conduct and persistent non-disclosure, and dismissed the motion to change.
