Johnathan D. Pecchia

Family law trial involving equalization of net family property, spousal support, post-separation adjustments, and intentional tort claims.

The court found that the applicant wife owed the respondent husband a nominal equalization payment of $973.70, which was set off against post-separation rent adjustments of $14,364.63 owed by the husband, resulting in a net payment of $13,390.93 to the wife.

Spousal support was awarded at $4,000.00 per month commencing March 1, 2026, front-end loaded, with the court accepting a cohabitation start date of November 7, 2011 following credibility findings against both parties.

The wife's claim for damages in tort (battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress) was dismissed in its entirety.

This decision concerns a default proceeding to enforce a longstanding child support order against Jason Burke, who owes over $76,000 in arrears.

The Ontario Court of Justice found that the payor failed to rebut the statutory presumption of ability to pay, despite his claims of disability and systemic discrimination.

The court detailed the extensive procedural history, the payor’s financial disclosures, and his failure to prioritize child support payments over personal expenses.

The court imposed a default order including immediate committal to jail for 90 days or until arrears are paid, with ongoing monthly payments subject to committal for missed payments, emphasizing enforcement balanced with accommodation for disability.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute involving allegations of intimate partner violence (IPV), child and spousal support, parenting time, and property division.

The court found a pattern of psychological, sexual, physical, and financial abuse by the father, and adopted a restorative approach to parenting orders, emphasizing the children's best interests, stability, and the need for therapeutic interventions.

The mother was granted sole decision-making authority (except for extracurriculars), and the father was ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing support.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the impact of IPV on family dynamics and the application of restorative justice principles in family law.

The respondent sought an order for the release of transcripts from ten past settlement and case conferences (2012-2020) and a waiver of associated fees, citing hearing difficulties and the need for appeals.

The applicant opposed, arguing the transcripts were irrelevant to the current appeals and that conference discussions are confidential.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no legitimate need for the transcripts that outweighed the confidentiality of settlement discussions, and affirmed it lacked jurisdiction to waive fees.

The trial addressed decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support for the parties' son.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility and that she demonstrated poor judgment, impulsivity, and an inability to cooperate with the father and professionals.

Conversely, the father was found to be child-focused, cooperative, and credible.

The court granted the father sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child, establishing a new parenting schedule.

The mother was imputed an income of $47,000 for child support purposes, and ordered to pay prospective child support to the father, with her claim for retroactive support largely denied.

The father brought a motion to enforce a 2013 parenting order, alleging the mother's non-compliance.

The mother argued the children, aged 13 and 15, refused contact due to the father's emotionally abusive and combative conduct, which included involving police, interfering with their activities, and making false allegations.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding the mother's inability to force contact reasonable given the father's egregious behaviour.

The court also imposed restrictions on the father's future motions to prevent further harassment and misuse of the court system.

The Respondent (father) brought a 14B Motion seeking to lift the stay of his Motion to Change child support, following a previous dismissal with leave to re-apply.

The court found that the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, did not provide full and frank financial disclosure (including unfiled income tax returns and corporate financial statements), and had not complied with previous court orders regarding over $49,000 in outstanding costs.

The father's affidavit was deemed irrelevant and unfocused, failing to address the deficiencies highlighted in the prior endorsement.

The court dismissed the father's motion to lift the stay and, consequently, dismissed his underlying Motion to Change child support.

The respondent father brought a motion to lift a stay on his Motion to Change child support, which had been imposed due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and pay outstanding costs.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he had not made meaningful efforts to comply with previous orders, failed to provide basic financial disclosure (including unfiled tax returns and corporate statements), and had accumulated significant child support arrears and unpaid costs.

The court also found his claim of a material change in circumstances to be weak and drew adverse inferences from his delayed bankruptcy discharge and continued lifestyle despite claimed impecuniosity.