Irving I. Frisch

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court decision dismissing his second motion to change an order relating to support and arrears.

The appellant had failed to make any support payments or pay costs orders from trial or appeal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's dismissal of the motion, finding that the appellant's unyielding failure to comply with outstanding orders warranted dismissal under the Family Law Rules.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the City of Toronto lacked party status, confirming that as assignee of support payments, the City maintained party status to the extent of its financial interests.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to change child and spousal support orders.

The motion judge dismissed the motion under Rule 1(8)(b) of the Family Law Rules due to the appellant's failure to comply with prior support and costs orders, combined with an absence of good faith effort to pay.

The motion judge also rejected the appellant's fraud claim as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the assignee (City of Toronto) maintained party status to the extent of its financial interests, that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion to dismiss based on non-compliance, and that the fraud allegation was both irrelevant and statute-barred.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change in a family law matter involving custody and child support.

The court heard motions to change brought by both the mother (applicant) and father (respondent) on June 25, 2015.

The court ordered joint custody with equal-time sharing, and ordered the father to pay child support of $457 per month with arrears of $5,088.

The father sought costs of $15,205.22, while the mother requested no costs be awarded.

The court determined that while the father was successful on the dominant parenting issue, the mother was more successful on the support issue.

Considering all relevant factors, the court awarded costs to the mother in the reduced amount of $6,000, payable at $200 per month.

Motion to change a custody and child support order.

The father sought sole custody and termination of child support.

The mother sought sole custody and increased child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's alcohol abuse, criminal charges, and exposure of the child to domestic conflict.

The court maintained joint custody with a shared parenting arrangement (alternating weeks), finding both parents capable but concerned about the mother's stability.

Child support was adjusted retroactively and prospectively, with the father's income imputed to the mother for calculation purposes under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The appellant appealed an order declaring a child to be a child of the marriage and requiring him to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as spousal support.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's findings on the child's status, his income, and the respondent's ability to contribute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or serious misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge.

The court also declined to admit fresh evidence regarding the appellant's income, noting it lacked cogency and that the trial order already provided a mechanism for adjusting support based on annual income tax returns.

Following a family law trial concerning child support, retroactive child support, and spousal support, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The successful party sought approximately $79,766 in costs for a seven‑day trial, while the opposing party argued no costs should be ordered due to alleged divided success.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered factors including the complexity of the issues, counsel’s hourly rate and time spent, the parties’ conduct, and the parties’ settlement offers.

The court found that while the successful party did not achieve a result superior to her final offer for all issues, she substantially exceeded the opposing party’s offers and was presumptively entitled to costs.

The court concluded that a reduced award constituted a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances.

The applicant sought child support and ongoing spousal support following the breakdown of a short marriage in which the respondent had sponsored the applicant and her child to Canada.

The central issue was whether the respondent stood in the place of a parent to the applicant’s child, who was not his biological child.

Applying the principles in Chartier, the court found that the respondent had assumed a parental role through financial support, representation to others as the child’s father, and participation in the child’s life.

The child was therefore a “child of the marriage,” and the respondent was ordered to pay guideline child support, including retroactive support.

The court also ordered time‑limited spousal support and granted the divorce.