Faryal Rashid

A default hearing brought by the applicant seeking to enforce child and spousal support arrears totaling $719,975.65 as of December 30, 2014.

The respondent claimed inability to pay due to mental health disability and sought adjournment pending a motion to change the support orders.

The court found serious credibility concerns regarding the respondent's conduct, including misrepresentation to Ontario Works and apparent deliberate orchestration of impoverishment.

However, the court noted that the respondent had been approved for ODSP and CPP disability benefits by government agencies, which constituted a material change in circumstances.

The default hearing was adjourned pending the respondent's motion to change proceeding, with the court declining to add the respondent's girlfriend as a party and reserving costs.

Following a family trial, the court addressed a correction to support arrears figures and the applicant’s request for costs.

The court accepted the parties’ agreement correcting the FRO credit and amended the prior judgment accordingly.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held the applicant was entitled to full indemnity costs based on the outcome, the respondent’s unreasonable litigation conduct, non-compliance with interim orders, and the applicant’s favourable offers to settle.

Costs were fixed at $45,838.69, with the equalization payment to be set off and the balance enforceable as an incident of support.

The applicant brought a motion seeking child support arrears, arguing that the respondent's 'excess' housing costs incurred while working in the U.K. should not be deducted from his income.

The applicant alleged that the respondent concealed the true amount of these costs during the negotiation of a 2008 consent order.

The court found that the respondent had disclosed the nature of the housing arrangement and that the applicant failed to inquire further about the specific amounts.

Applying the factors for setting aside an agreement for non-disclosure, the court held that there was no concealment or misrepresentation.

The court declined to set aside the 2008 consent order and allowed the housing cost deductions.

The court also declined to rule prematurely on the deductibility of the respondent's ongoing wrongful dismissal legal fees.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking reduction or termination of spousal support, termination or adjustment of child support for adult children pursuing post‑secondary education, and removal of a life insurance requirement securing support obligations.

The respondent cross‑moved for increased spousal support and arrears.

The court considered the Federal Child Support Guidelines and jurisprudence governing support for adult children living away at university, finding that full table support may be inappropriate where parents are already contributing to living and education costs.

The court ordered modified child support reflecting different circumstances for each child and required a contribution from the adult child pursuing additional education.

Spousal support remained payable at $1,700 per month based on compensatory principles arising from childcare responsibilities and economic disadvantage, with income imputed to the respondent.

The payor was also ordered to obtain increased life insurance to secure support obligations and to pay arrears.