Janice Bantle

Following a family law trial concerning the imputation of income for child support purposes, the court found that the father had deliberately organized his financial affairs to conceal income and frustrate his child support obligations.

Although the father succeeded on a minor access issue, the mother prevailed on the primary issue relating to income and child support.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs of $17,320 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court held that the father's obstructive conduct, omissions in financial disclosure, and contradictory evidence justified the requested costs award.

Costs were awarded to the mother in full.

The applicant mother sought to vary child support based on the respondent father's income as a self‑employed business owner.

The central issue was whether the father’s reported income accurately reflected the money available for support or whether income should be imputed under ss. 18 and 19 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court found the father’s financial evidence unreliable and concluded he had structured his business affairs to minimize apparent income and avoid support obligations.

The court imputed significantly higher income for several years and set an ongoing imputed income for future support calculations.

The court also addressed a minor access dispute and ordered the parents to share transportation responsibilities.

The appellant appealed a final order for an equalization payment of approximately $4,560 and child support totaling just under $9,000 annually.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding that under sections 6 and 19 of the Courts of Justice Act, the appeal lies to the Divisional Court because the amount in issue is under the monetary threshold.

The court declined to reconstitute itself as a panel of the Divisional Court or transfer the appeal.