George Schnall

A motion to change a child support order where the respondent father sought retroactive reduction of child support from $415 per month (based on imputed income of $45,000) to reflect his actual self-employment income of approximately $20,000-$25,000 annually.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, alleging the father was hiding income and conducting business through his current partner.

The court found the father's financial disclosure inadequate and incomplete, drew an adverse inference, and determined the father had been under-employed.

The court imputed income at $35,000 per annum (a middle ground), reducing child support retroactively to $325 per month.

The court confirmed the mother's sole custody and formalized the father's alternate weekend access.

This is a summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a final order for placement of two children with their father and stepmother pursuant to section 57(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The children had been placed with their stepmother following a protection application initiated due to the mother's drug overdose.

The court found that the mother, while making some progress in addressing her substance abuse issues, had not established a sustained lifestyle change and had not demonstrated that the children would be better served by residing with her.

The court granted the society's motion, finding no triable issues and that the children's stability in their current placement outweighed any potential benefit of returning them to the mother's care.

The complainant, a former union president who was promoted to a managerial foreman position, was terminated by the respondent.

He alleged his termination and the respondent's refusal to return him to the bargaining unit were motivated by anti-union animus, contrary to section 58(a) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complainant was a managerial employee.

The Board held that while it lacked jurisdiction to review the termination from the managerial position, it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding the refusal to return the complainant to the bargaining unit, as he was then a person seeking to become an employee.