Helen Power

Following a trial on a motion to change child support, the court addressed costs.

The respondent was largely successful in obtaining a reduction in support for multiple years, although not to the full extent requested.

The court found that both parties had engaged in unreasonable conduct: the respondent by understating income in financial disclosure, and the applicant by persisting in allegations of significantly increased income despite contrary evidence and failing to clarify accounting information before trial.

The respondent had made a reasonable offer to settle that closely approximated the eventual order, while the applicant made none.

Costs were awarded to the respondent, including disbursements for the accountant who testified at trial.

On a motion to change a final family law order, the moving party sought to reduce child support on the basis of a substantial post-order decline in income and an equal sharing of parenting time.

The responding party alleged prior non-disclosure and sought lump sum retroactive support based on asserted corporate income and shareholder benefits.

The court accepted the accountant's evidence that certain large accounting entries were not income actually available for support purposes, found a genuine income decline beginning in 2013, and held that the parties exercised true 50/50 parenting time.

Applying s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the framework in Contino, the court varied support to set-off amounts effective January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2015.