4 total
Shared custody child support recalculated using guideline set‑off despite high payor income.
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.
Interim custody change refused; shared parenting maintained and OCL appointment ordered.
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.
Each party ordered to bear own costs after mixed success on motion.
Following a family law motion addressing several issues including whether retirement constituted a material change in circumstances for child support, retroactive special expenses, income imputation, and continuation of support for a child attending school, the court considered the issue of costs.
The husband was successful on some issues, including the change of circumstances and retroactive special expenses, while the wife succeeded on income imputation and continuation of support for a child in school.
The court found that success was substantially divided between the parties.
In light of the mixed results and the timing of settlement offers, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.
Voluntary retirement justified imputing income for recalculating child support.
The respondent father brought a motion to vary a prior child support order following his retirement and the eldest child reaching the age of majority.
The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father’s reduced income but concluded that his retirement was voluntary and unsupported by sufficient medical evidence.
As a result, the court imputed income above the father’s pension income when recalculating support.
The court also addressed whether support should continue for the adult child during a transitional period before potential post-secondary education and declined to award historical special expenses due to insufficient evidence.
The support order was varied effective January 1, 2013 based on the imputed income.
