Janet Preston

This is a costs decision following a three-day motion to change child support.

The mother sought to reinstate child support for two children and claim section 7 expenses retroactively from January 2004.

The father opposed the motion and sought to adjust the table amount based on his actual income.

The court granted the mother's motion, imputing income to the father for intervening years, ordering retroactive table amounts and section 7 expenses, and ordering ongoing support and annual financial disclosure.

The father's conduct was found to be unreasonable, including persistent non-disclosure of income, failure to comply with prior court orders, and inadequate financial disclosure during the motion.

The court awarded full recovery costs to the mother.

The mother brought a motion to change a consent final order made in 2003 that suspended child support.

She sought reinstatement of child support from January 2004, retroactive adjustment of the table amount based on the father's income, contribution to section 7 expenses, spousal support, and medical/dental coverage.

The father, who is a trained mechanical engineer and medical technician living in Maryland, was found to be intentionally underemployed.

The court imputed income to the father based on his education, skills, and experience, and ordered retroactive child support adjustments from 2004 onwards.

The court also ordered the father to contribute 50% of specified section 7 expenses totalling $36,199.88.

The mother's claim for spousal support was dismissed as it was not raised within the appropriate timeframe and there is no jurisdiction to order it post-divorce.

The applicant sought an extension of time to bring an application for an equalization payment under the Family Law Act, and a declaration that his equitable claims based on unjust enrichment and trust doctrines were within the applicable limitation periods.

The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant failed to meet the good faith requirement for an extension and that equitable claims were time-barred by a two-year limitation period.

The court granted the extension, finding the applicant acted in good faith by prioritizing family needs and being deterred by the respondent's conduct, and declared the equitable claims were subject to a ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act, not the two-year period under the Limitations Act, 2002.