Glen Schwartz

The applicant mother sought retroactive and ongoing child support for two children.

The respondent father had failed to disclose his income for over a decade and significantly underpaid support.

Applying the Colucci framework, the court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by hiding his income and underpaying support.

The court deviated from the presumptive three-year start date, ordering retroactive support back to 2013.

Furthermore, due to the father's recent unexplained income reduction and failure to provide full financial disclosure, the court imputed his income at $127,057 for ongoing support based on his past earning capacity.

The respondent father brought a motion to strike the applicant mother's responding materials on a motion to change, to proceed to an uncontested trial, and for interim child support.

The mother had failed to comply with previous court orders and engaged in abusive 'Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument' (OPCA) tactics, including registering a vexatious $528 million PPSA lien against the father and his lawyer.

The court struck the mother's materials due to her extreme and wilful non-compliance, ordered the matter to proceed by uncontested trial, and granted interim child support to the father based on the children's changed primary residence.

The mother was also ordered to pay $10,000 in costs for her bad faith conduct.

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's pleadings and for a vesting order regarding the jointly held matrimonial home due to the father's egregious and persistent non-compliance with court orders.

The father, who resides in Iran, failed to pay over $700,000 in retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, mortgage expenses, and costs, and failed to provide financial disclosure.

The court applied the three-pronged test from Lamothe v. Ellis and struck the father's pleadings, allowing the mother to proceed by way of an uncontested trial.

The court also granted a vesting order transferring the father's 50% interest in the matrimonial home to the mother to secure the outstanding support and equalization obligations.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased and unsupervised parenting time with the parties' three-year-old child.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, alleging the father had substance abuse issues, posed a danger to the child, and that the child was immunocompromised and at risk due to COVID-19.

The court found the mother's evidence of substance abuse to be historical and vague, and noted the father had passed numerous drug and alcohol tests.

The court concluded the mother's restrictions were excessive and not in the child's best interests, granting the father's motion for unsupervised parenting time, including overnights, subject to continued breathalyzer testing at pick-up and drop-off.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial on child support obligations.

The court determined that the father was the more successful party in the dispute regarding where the parties' son lived and the resulting child support adjustments.

Although the mother achieved some success on certain issues, the dominant issue—the son's residence—was decided largely in the father's favour.

The father sought $19,700 in costs but the court awarded $11,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $500 per month commencing February 1, 2018.

The court found the father's settlement offer reasonable and noted the mother should have settled the case.

Both parties brought motions to change a child support order dated May 10, 2011.

The father claimed the son had been living with him since fall 2014 and sought reimbursement for alleged overpayments and section 7 expenses.

The mother opposed the transfer and sought retroactive increases in child support and section 7 expense contributions.

The court found that the son primarily lived with the father from September 2014 onward, constituting a shared parenting arrangement that evolved into primary residence with the father by September 2015.

The court adjusted support retroactively to September 1, 2015, imputed income to the mother based on her intentional unemployment to care for her other child with special needs, and recalculated section 7 expenses.

The father was found to have overpaid support and the mother was ordered to reimburse him over time.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order granting sole custody to the respondent father.

She argued that the termination of family counselling, the child's absence from school, and the respondent's changes in residence constituted material changes in circumstances.

The court applied the test from Gordon v. Goertz and found that none of these events were unforeseen or materially affected the children's needs in a fundamental way.

The motion to change was dismissed, and costs were fixed at $2,000 payable by the applicant.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's calculation of the equalization payment, arguing errors in the inclusion and exclusion of certain bank accounts, property sale proceeds, and the valuation of home contents.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments, factual findings, or application of the valuation date.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

A high‑conflict custody dispute involving three children where the parents made mutual allegations of parental alienation and sexual abuse.

After extensive evidence, including testimony from police, child protection authorities, medical professionals, and an Office of the Children’s Lawyer clinical assist, the court found no deliberate sexual abuse and concluded the allegations were largely influenced by the responding parent.

The court determined that the views of the older children favouring residence with the applicant were independently formed, while the younger child’s views were likely influenced by the responding parent.

Applying the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court awarded the applicant sole custody of all three children.

Access for the responding parent to the older children was to occur according to their wishes, while a structured transitional schedule was ordered for the younger child, with counselling and a future judicial review.