Jennifer M. Reynolds

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking retroactive and prospective variation of child support under a separation agreement in a shared custody arrangement.

The respondent’s income had increased substantially after the agreement, yet support had not been recalculated annually as contemplated.

The court applied the framework from Contino v. Leonelli-Contino and the Federal Child Support Guidelines, holding that the proper starting point remained the table set‑off amount based on the parties’ line 150 incomes.

The respondent failed to demonstrate that the presumptive guideline amounts were inappropriate despite income exceeding $150,000.

Retroactive support was ordered from June 2012 with significant arrears and prospective set‑off support based on updated incomes.

The mother brought a motion seeking interim sole custody and interim spousal support following the parties’ separation after a long-term relationship and marriage.

The father opposed and sought the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court held that the existing shared parenting arrangement constituted the status quo and that interim changes should only occur where there is clear evidence of danger or a compelling reason.

Finding no evidence that the children were at risk or that their needs were not being met, the court declined to disturb the shared parenting schedule and instead referred the matter to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer under s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The request for interim spousal support was also declined pending further financial disclosure.