Jim Oxley

The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order dated May 27, 2008, which required him to pay $194.00 per month based on imputed annual income of $22,880.00.

The respondent argued that his medical condition had worsened since the original order, rendering him incapable of any gainful employment.

The applicant opposed the motion, contending that the respondent remained capable of working and had failed to meet his parental support obligations.

The court found that the respondent had not demonstrated a material change in circumstances sufficient to vary the order.

Although the respondent's medical condition had deteriorated, the medical evidence did not support total incapacity for work, and the respondent had failed to undertake reasonable efforts to retrain or seek suitable employment within his limitations.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to find the respondent in contempt of court for failing to direct his pension to the Family Responsibility Office for child support arrears.

The motion judge found it impossible to determine if the respondent had failed to direct the payment, and concluded the order was a payment order not enforceable by contempt.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent wilfully breached the clear terms of the order, despite his reprehensible conduct in cashing out the pension.

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society sought leave to withdraw a child protection application.

The mother had been hospitalized for acute psychiatric distress related to imminent deportation to the Netherlands, where she feared returning to an abusive father.

The Society argued the children were no longer in need of protection following the mother's discharge from hospital.

The respondent mother and counsel for the children opposed the withdrawal, citing ongoing risks including the mother's mental health, the threat of deportation, and the presence of the abusive father in the Netherlands.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature to withdraw the application given the unresolved risks and the intersection of child protection and immigration law.