J.C. Baldock

The applicant brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with disclosure orders and to obtain orders for spousal and child support.

The respondent had repeatedly failed to provide complete financial disclosure despite multiple court orders and extensions over a one-year period.

The court found the respondent made no real attempt to obtain documents and struck his pleadings, proceeding on an unopposed basis.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his ability to earn investment income from lottery winnings and awarded child support of $664 per month and spousal support of $387 per month on a time-limited basis.

This is a summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a final order for placement of two children with their father and stepmother pursuant to section 57(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The children had been placed with their stepmother following a protection application initiated due to the mother's drug overdose.

The court found that the mother, while making some progress in addressing her substance abuse issues, had not established a sustained lifestyle change and had not demonstrated that the children would be better served by residing with her.

The court granted the society's motion, finding no triable issues and that the children's stability in their current placement outweighed any potential benefit of returning them to the mother's care.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support and access order granted in 2007.

The respondent father sought relief for alleged daycare overpayment, joint custody, expanded access, reduced child support, and travel restrictions.

The court increased child support based on the respondent's 2011 income, rejected the joint custody request due to lack of trust and communication between parties, maintained overnight access with enhanced supervision and reporting requirements following an incident of injury to the child, and imposed detailed access terms including travel provisions and expense documentation requirements.

The respondent brought a motion to change child support provisions.

A temporary order from February 2005 required the respondent to pay $570 per month for two children based on imputed income of $40,000.

A final order in May 2005 made no reference to child support but included a "without prejudice" clause preserving the applicant's right to seek retroactive support.

The respondent argued he should not have supported the applicant's biological child and that the final order terminated the temporary order.

The court found the "without prejudice" clause gave the applicant the right to seek retroactive support from the date of the final order.

The court imputed income to the respondent and calculated retroactive support from May 2005, accounting for periods of incarceration and the respondent's actual income history.

The respondent was ordered to pay arrears and ongoing support based on his current income.

The respondent father brought a motion to change seeking enforcement of access provisions in a separation agreement and adjustment of section 7 expense payments.

The applicant mother sought variation of custody/access provisions and child support in accordance with the Guidelines.

The parties resolved custody/access issues through mediation but could not agree on financial matters.

The court found the child support provisions in the agreement heavily favoured the respondent and ordered Guideline child support of $1,640.00 per month effective January 1, 2012, with the respondent paying 71 percent of all section 7 expenses, decreasing to 63 percent as of January 1, 2013.

The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order dated July 10, 1996, which required him to pay $200.00 per month for the support of his son.

The issue was limited to determining when the child became ineligible for support.

The respondent argued the child ceased to be eligible in November 2006 when he was 16 years old, had moved out, was not in full-time school, and had withdrawn from parental control.

The applicant contended the child remained in her care until 2008 when he turned 18 and was not in full-time school.

The court found the evidence inconclusive but determined the child had not withdrawn from parental control prior to age 18.

However, the court concluded that by spring 2008, when the applicant moved out of her home, the child was either not living with his mother or not attending school full-time, making him ineligible for support.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary sole custody of the parties' four-year-old son, with the respondent mother bringing a cross-motion for the same relief.

The parties separated in February 2011 after marrying in May 2008.

Following separation, the respondent mother made allegations of abuse against the applicant, which were investigated by the Children's Aid Society and found to be unsubstantiated.

Criminal charges were subsequently withdrawn when it became apparent the child had been coached.

The court found the respondent mother had engaged in a campaign to discredit the applicant and subjected the child to unnecessary intervention.

The applicant father was found to offer a more stable environment and balanced approach.

The court granted temporary custody to the applicant father with liberal and generous access to the respondent mother.

The court addressed the issue of guideline child support in an addendum to a ruling released March 5, 2012.

The applicant father had returned to university, reducing his income from approximately $41,000 annually to minimal earnings as a teaching assistant.

The respondent mother argued the applicant was intentionally under-employed to avoid support obligations.

The court found the applicant was intentionally under-employed within the meaning of section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines but recognized his reasonable prospect of higher future earnings.

The court imputed income at $21,840 per year (based on $10.00 per hour for 42 hours weekly) rather than his previous $41,000 income level, resulting in child support payments of $186.00 per month from September 1, 2011, decreasing to $174.00 per month effective January 1, 2012, with retroactive payments of $371.00 per month for the period April 1, 2011 to August 30, 2011.

The court addressed child support and section 7 expense contributions following a prior decision on mobility and access.

The respondent's income had fluctuated over the years, with a significant reduction in 2011 due to mental health issues.

The court varied the existing support order, granting a reduction for 2011 and adjusting support for 2012.

From July 2012 onward, when the applicant relocated to Newfoundland, the court applied a modest reduction to account for the respondent's increased access costs (travel, accommodation, and communication).

The court also addressed passport and vacation travel authority for the children.

A motion to change child support was brought by the respondent father, who sought either termination or reduction of support for his daughter who was approaching 19 years of age.

The father claimed undue hardship based on his new family responsibilities with four young children.

The court found that while the father had established undue hardship, the daughter remained entitled to support through June 2012 as she was living with the applicant mother and attending school full time.

The court reduced the respondent's obligation to the amount of the existing order, declined to increase support despite the respondent's income increase, and terminated support effective June 30, 2012.

The court also terminated the respondent's contribution to section 7 expenses and credited an overpayment of $2,068.00 related to guitar lessons that had not been incurred for at least four years.

The court determined child support payable from January 1, 2010 onwards, the income basis for that support, and outstanding arrears.

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent based on past earnings, arguing he was wilfully underemployed.

The respondent argued his employment decisions were reasonable and support should be based on actual income.

The court found the respondent was not wilfully underemployed, though he was slow to seek alternative employment when positions proved unproductive.

The court attributed $42,500 income for 2010 and used actual income thereafter, resulting in minimal arrears of $69.00.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a temporary order made August 3, 2011, seeking to terminate his obligation to contribute one-third of daycare costs (approximately $350 per month) for the parties' child.

The applicant, pursuing a PhD in physics and funded through OSAP, argued the obligation was too onerous.

The respondent was attending Teachers College with expectations of graduation and employment.

The court found no significant change in circumstances warranting variation.

Both parties had chosen to pursue higher education simultaneously, creating financial burden that must be fairly shared.

The court dismissed the motion but directed the respondent to maximize tax deductions available for daycare expenses, with the applicant's obligation limited to one-third of the net cost after tax benefits.

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate with her two daughters from Ontario to Corner Brook, Newfoundland.

The respondent father opposed the relocation, citing concerns about maintaining his relationship with the children and the impact on his mental health.

The court granted the relocation, finding that the mother's choice of venue was reasonable and that there were ample opportunities for the father to maintain a relationship with the children despite the geographic distance.

The judgment addresses issues of custody, access, and mobility in the context of parental separation.

Motion to change a child support order originally made in February 2005.

The applicant mother sought to increase child support from $493.00 per month based on evidence that the respondent father had substantially underreported his income at the time of the original order.

The respondent, a self-employed welder, claimed income of only $33,300 per year despite gross business revenues exceeding $100,000 annually and a prior disclosed income of $91,000.

The court found the respondent's financial disclosure inadequate and unreliable, with evidence of personal expenses written off as business deductions, undisclosed cash income, and a lifestyle inconsistent with reported earnings.

The court imputed income of $90,000 per annum and ordered retroactive support arrears.

The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order following a material change in circumstances.

The respondent's employment was terminated in December 2010, and his income was reduced from $58,000 to $21,600 from Employment Insurance.

The applicant alleged the respondent had undisclosed self-employment income but failed to provide evidence despite being given an opportunity to do so.

The court found a change in circumstances warranted a variation of child support but imposed an obligation on the respondent to make reasonable efforts to obtain employment.

Child support was reduced from $550 to $180 per month for 2011 and $166 per month from 2012 onward.

Section 7 expenses were restructured with a 50/50 cost-sharing arrangement capped at $250 annually for the respondent's share.