Jonah Paritzky

The applicant sought to increase child support and retroactive arrears for their adult disabled son.

The respondent sought to terminate child support and section 7 expenses, and recover overpayments.

The court found a material change in circumstances and confirmed the son remained a "child of the marriage" due to disability.

Applying section 3(2)(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court determined that the presumptive table amount was inappropriate given the son's receipt of ODSP and Passport funding.

The court calculated a reasonable monthly budget for the son and determined the respondent's child support obligation based on the shortfall, resulting in a reduced monthly payment.

The court also addressed retroactive overpayments and underpayments, finding the applicant owed the respondent a net amount.

Fixed section 7 contributions were terminated, but parties remained equally responsible for post-secondary expenses not covered by grants.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a default judgment that granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility, primary parenting time, and child support.

The respondent had been served with the application but failed to file an answer despite multiple extensions and warnings.

Applying the factors from Zia v. Ahmad, the court found that while the respondent moved promptly after the order was made, he did not provide an adequate explanation for his failure to participate and did not come to the court with clean hands, having failed to pay child support arrears.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion to change his child support obligations, seeking to terminate support for his three adult children and rescind accumulated arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the children becoming independent adults and the bankruptcy of the applicant's business.

Applying the Colucci framework, the court terminated ongoing support, retroactively reduced the arrears from $102,431.91 to $23,713, and established a repayment plan.

The respondent mother's cross-claims for retroactive support from 2009-2011 and relief regarding a 2009 computer privacy breach were dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to have the respondent declared a special party under the Family Law Rules and to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as his representative.

The respondent opposed the motion, claiming the separation was temporary and due to complex criminal conspiracies against him.

The court found the respondent incapable of understanding the legal issues or representing himself due to his delusions, declared him a special party, and appointed the PGT.