Jamie Marie Mookerjea

The respondent father sought leave to bring a motion to change a 2012 final order regarding parenting and child support.

The father had a long history of bringing meritless motions and had accumulated over $13,000 in unpaid costs awards.

The court applied the two-part test for granting leave, finding that the father failed to establish an arguable case on the merits for any of his claims, which included adjusting historic child support and increasing parenting time.

Furthermore, the court found that allowing the motion would result in an abuse of process given the father's failure to pay outstanding costs and his vexatious litigation conduct.

Leave was denied and costs of $2,000 were awarded to the mother.

Following a motion to change where the parties had divided success on parenting and child support issues, both parties sought costs.

The court reviewed the parties' respective offers to settle under Rule 18 and found that neither party achieved a result as favourable or more favourable than their offers.

Given the divided success and the factors under Rule 24, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

This was a final hearing on a Motion to Change the parenting and child support provisions of a 2017 Final Order.

The Applicant Mother sought changes to decision-making and primary residence, alleging parental alienation, while the Respondent Father sought child support.

The court determined that the provincial Children’s Law Reform Act and Family Law Act applied, not the Divorce Act, as no divorce had been granted.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the Mother's relocation and the child's increased resistance to contact, justifying changes to parenting time.

Parenting time was made subject to the child's wishes, and the Mother was made solely responsible for transportation.

Retroactive child support was ordered from July 1, 2020, the date of formal notice, dismissing earlier claims due to lack of effective notice and the Father's non-disclosure of income.

The Mother was ordered to contribute to specific s.7 expenses and maintain life insurance.