Gillian Hayes

This ruling addresses a mother's cross-motion for child support and arrears, and the determination of the father's income for support purposes.

The court established the father's 2017 income at $160,752 by adding back 50% of grossed-up dividend income and specific business expenses.

The court declined to set aside the parties' partial parenting agreement regarding child support calculation stages without a full trial, emphasizing the need to assess the agreement's context and actual parenting time.

Arrears for child support and Section 7 expenses were calculated, with the father owing $2,502.29, subject to further adjustments.

The applicant father sought an order for the parties' two children to attend Rosedale Day School (RDS) or Maurice Cody Junior Public School, while the respondent mother cross-moved for them to attend St. Brigid's Catholic School and for support orders.

The court focused on the school placement, finding that attending RDS was in the children's best interests, particularly for the older child with ADHD and giftedness, due to its enriched curriculum and smaller class sizes.

The father was ordered to pay tuition for the first two academic years, with a review thereafter.

Daycare arrangements were also addressed, with the younger child remaining at Purple Tree Nursery School and the mother having the option to place the older child in Child Space Daycare at her own expense on her days.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a Final Order to reduce child support, while the respondent mother sought an increase, both agreeing to a material change in circumstances.

The court found the father's reported income inconsistent with his lifestyle and earning capacity, and imputed an income of $100,000 to him.

Consequently, the court ordered an increase in child support and a proportionate sharing of s. 7 expenses based on the imputed income.

Parents brought cross-motions seeking interim sole custody of two young children following separation.

The court considered conflicting allegations of abuse, the parties’ work schedules, the children’s established residence, schooling, and involvement of paternal grandparents.

Applying the best interests test under s. 16 of the Divorce Act, the court prioritized stability and continuity in residence and schooling.

The father’s home offered continuity with the children’s long‑time residence, school, and extended family support.

The court granted the father interim sole custody with substantial weekend and mid‑week parenting time to the mother and directed the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to investigate.

Parents brought cross-motions seeking interim sole custody of two young children following separation.

The court considered conflicting allegations of abuse, the parties’ work schedules, the children’s established residence, schooling, and involvement of paternal grandparents.

Applying the best interests test under s. 16 of the Divorce Act, the court prioritized stability and continuity in residence and schooling.

The father’s home offered continuity with the children’s long‑time residence, school, and extended family support.

The court granted the father interim sole custody with substantial weekend and mid‑week parenting time to the mother and directed the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to investigate.