James M. Peluch

The respondent brought a motion to stay or dismiss the applicant's motion to change a final order, citing delay and non-compliance.

The applicant's motion to change initially sought changes to custody, access, and child support, but most issues became moot due to the children's ages and living arrangements.

The court declined to stay or dismiss the motion, finding it was not oppressive or vexatious, and that both parties had contributed to disclosure issues.

The court determined child support arrears owed by the respondent to the applicant for 2015-2018 to be $8,288, with 2014 arrears requiring a trial of an issue.

The respondent's request to compel production of an order and to prohibit future motions by the applicant was denied, as was the applicant's request to change driving arrangements.

A trial decision concerning custody, access, and child support of two young children following separation.

The applicant sought joint custody with a 50/50 shared residential arrangement, while the respondent sought sole custody with structured access.

The court found incidents of domestic violence by the applicant, poor communication between the parties, and the applicant's intentional underemployment.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent with structured overnight access to the applicant, and imputed income for child support purposes based on the applicant's capacity to earn.

Appeal from a trial judgment in a family law matter involving division of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

The trial judge ordered an equal division of net family property (proceeds from the matrimonial home), denied child support on the basis that the respondent's income was insufficient and the children had repudiated their relationship with their mother, and ordered the appellant to pay spousal support of $500 per month based on imputed income of $40,000.

The appellant appealed on grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias, erroneous denial of child support, improper imputation of income, and failure to order unequal division of family property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and the application for fresh evidence.