George R. Vella

The applicant sought to vary his child support obligations, arguing for a reduction based on his corporate income and losses.

The respondent sought to increase the applicant's income by adding back various corporate deductions and imputing hypothetical interest and tip income.

The court largely rejected the respondent's proposed additions for automotive expenses, amortization, non-arm's length salary, and hypothetical interest, finding the forensic accountant's testimony problematic.

However, the court agreed to add back child support improperly deducted as a company expense and grossed-up tip income.

The court calculated the applicant's income for child support purposes for several periods, resulting in adjusted monthly payments, and maintained the 50/50 split for Section 7 expenses as per the original agreement.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent father brought a motion to quash two summonses to witness issued by the applicant mother to his doctor and his former solicitor.

The father argued the evidence was protected by doctor-patient confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege.

The court quashed the summons for the doctor, noting the father consented to releasing the requested prescription records, making the doctor's attendance unnecessary.

However, the court upheld the summons for the solicitor, finding the father had implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege by summarizing and relying on the legal advice in his sworn statements to explain his failure to seek access to his child.