Jennifer Ryan

In an uncontested trial following the striking of the respondent's pleadings, the applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility, parenting time orders, and child support for their three-year-old child.

The court found a history of family violence and that the respondent had minimal involvement in the child's life.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility, the right to travel without consent, and ordered the respondent to pay ongoing and retroactive child support based on an imputed annual income of $43,750.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' four children to Australia, arguing they were wrongfully retained in Ontario.

The children had been living in Ontario for six years with the consent of both parents, though the father argued the intention was always to return to Australia.

Applying the hybrid approach to habitual residence, the court found that the focal point of the children's lives was in Ontario and that parental intention did not outweigh their significant ties to the province.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant father commenced a family law application in Ottawa regarding custody and access of the parties' infant child.

The respondent mother, who resided primarily in the Toronto area with the child, brought a motion to transfer the venue to Newmarket or Toronto.

The court determined that the child's 'real home' and ordinary residence was with the respondent in Bradford, Ontario.

Consequently, the court ordered the application transferred to Newmarket, the closest courthouse to the child's ordinary residence.

The applicant brought a motion to impute income to the respondent for purposes of calculating child support and section 7 expenses for seven children.

The respondent operated a corporation and claimed minimal personal income, but provided incomplete and inadequate financial disclosure.

The court examined corporate bank deposits, director’s fees, retained earnings, and unsupported corporate deductions, and applied s. 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines to determine whether corporate funds were available for support.

Finding that the respondent failed to justify the deductions or demonstrate that corporate income was unavailable, the court imputed income of $164,525.

Retroactive child support was ordered along with proportional section 7 expense contributions and full recovery costs due to the respondent’s failure to provide proper disclosure.