Josée J. Paquette

Following a decision on multiple motions to change final orders regarding parenting and child support, both parties sought costs.

The court found that the plaintiff was more successful on the important issues and that the respondent's conduct had caused delay and increased costs.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $8,000 plus HST to the plaintiff.

On multiple family law motions to change, the court addressed parenting, passport control, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The moving party failed to establish any sufficient basis to vary the existing summer schedule or the primary-residence arrangement for one child, but obtained a limited order for mutual first opportunity for overnight care during the school year.

Applying the appellate framework for special and extraordinary expenses under s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court held that ordinary school trips, non-competitive activities, and cell phone bills were not extraordinary expenses and varied the order so proper s. 7 expenses would be shared proportionately.

Child support was varied effective August 1, 2014 and prospectively from June 1, 2015, but requests to expunge prior arrears were dismissed.

In a family law motion to change, the moving party was granted leave to seek variation of prior final orders concerning custody and child support based on a material change in circumstances.

Pending the final hearing, the court accepted updated income figures and made a temporary child support order using a straight set-off calculation under s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court proceeded on a temporary premise that one child primarily resided with the responding party and that the moving party did not have that child more than 40 percent of the time.

The prior final support order was temporarily varied to require payment of $27 per month effective December 1, 2014.

Application concerning retroactive and ongoing child support following changes to parenting arrangements that evolved into a hybrid shared‑custody regime.

The court applied the framework from Contino and the Federal Child Support Guidelines to determine support where two children were in shared custody and one primarily resided with the applicant.

Considering the parties’ respective household incomes, the applicant’s remarriage, the respondent’s responsibility for section 7 expenses, and the goal of maintaining comparable standards of living in each household, the court departed from the table set‑off amount.

Ongoing support was fixed at $800 per month.

Retroactive support was limited to the years 2011‑2013 due to delay and hardship considerations, resulting in a modest balance owing together with arrears of section 7 expenses.