Felicity Sattan

In Part Two of a trial decision, the court determined child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support following a transfer of primary care to the applicant father.

The court imputed additional income to the applicant based on unreported rental income but rejected the respondent's expert evidence claiming the applicant earned significant unreported cash from his pizza franchise.

The court calculated child support arrears at $3,860 and section 7 arrears at $8,136.98, crediting the applicant for a portion of undocumented cash support payments made prior to the litigation.

The court found the respondent entitled to compensatory spousal support at the mid-range effective December 24, 2021, deferring the final quantum and duration pending further submissions.

The applicant father sought primary care and sole decision-making responsibility for his two children, who had not seen him in over a year due to the respondent mother's interference.

The mother alleged the children were profoundly disabled and terrified of the father due to past family violence.

The court found that the mother was consciously or unconsciously alienating the children from the father, causing their mental health to deteriorate and creating a resist-refuse dynamic.

The court ordered a custody reversal, transferring primary residence and sole decision-making to the father, with a 30-day period of no contact with the mother to allow for intensive reunification therapy.

The court also ordered the daughter's surname to be hyphenated to include the father's surname.

The father brought a motion for shared parenting of the parties' three children, while the mother brought a cross-motion for primary residence and child support.

The court found that the mother had been the primary parent both prior to and following separation.

Applying the best interests of the child factors and the principle that the status quo should generally be maintained on a temporary basis absent compelling reasons, the court dismissed the father's motion and granted the mother's cross-motion.

The father was also ordered to pay temporary child support and costs of $13,500.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking orders related to the respondent father's alleged alcohol consumption while driving with their child, including the use of an alcohol monitoring device and third-party transportation.

The mother's concerns stemmed from an incident where the child reported erratic driving and the father drinking.

The father denied the allegations, asserting he consumed only one glass of wine and that erratic driving was due to another vehicle.

The court found insufficient objective evidence to substantiate the mother's claims of alcohol addiction or to justify the imposition of an alcohol monitoring device or third-party transport.

However, the father's undertaking not to consume alcohol 12 hours prior to any access exchange was formalized into a temporary court order.

The court also granted the mother leave to file an application and scheduled a case conference.