Julia Amourgis

The applicant mother sought ongoing and retroactive child support, as well as section 7 expenses, for the parties' eight-year-old child.

The respondent father resisted the application, claiming he was completely unable to work due to medical depression and anxiety and was receiving Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The court found the father's medical evidence insufficient to establish a total inability to work and drew adverse inferences from his failure to comply with financial disclosure orders.

Applying the Drygala v. Pauli framework, the court imputed an annual income of $44,000.00 to the father, ordering him to pay $406.00 monthly in ongoing child support and fixing retroactive arrears at $15,000.00.

The mother's claim for section 7 expenses was dismissed without prejudice due to a lack of current expenses and financial disclosure.

The Respondent Father brought a motion to enforce existing access orders for the child of the marriage and for a defined holiday access schedule, including police enforcement for access and an order for costs.

The Applicant Mother brought a cross-motion to vary the Father's access to remove overnight visits and to vary child support based on updated income.

The court found the Mother had a pattern of unlawfully withholding the child and had not properly brought her motion to change access.

The Father's motion for enforcement and a defined holiday schedule was granted, including police enforcement.

Child support was varied by consent.

The Father was awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought a charge against the respondents' property to secure repayment of a $200,000 family loan advanced toward the purchase of a residence containing a granny flat for her use.

The court interpreted the parties' written agreement and promissory note, which expressly required the borrowers to grant reasonable security on request.

Despite the existence of an earlier gift letter to the mortgage lender and the respondents' matrimonial dispute, the court held the applicant was entitled to security over the very property acquired with her contribution.

An order charging the property in favour of the applicant for $200,000 without interest, on demand terms mirroring the 2012 agreement, was granted.