Juliet C. Baldock

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside a default order granting custody, access, and child support based on imputed income.

The court found that while the respondent acted in a timely manner, he failed to disclose a viable defence, provided contradictory and incomplete financial information, and did not act in good faith.

The motion to set aside the order was dismissed, though the child care costs were varied to reflect a reduction in the applicant's actual costs.

The applicant brought a motion to change the terms of a separation agreement to reduce or terminate spousal support, alleging a material change in circumstances since a previous order dismissed his earlier motion.

The applicant cited deteriorating health, depletion of assets, and separation from his second wife, who previously assisted him in his business.

The court found that while the applicant's health issues were ongoing, his separation from his second wife compromised his ability to generate income, constituting a material change.

The court imputed an income of $45,000 to the applicant and reduced his spousal support obligation to $800 per month.

The applicant mother, residing in Manitoba, applied for child support for two children from the respondent father, residing in Ontario, under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The respondent claimed undue hardship due to his obligations to his new wife, their two children, and his mother-in-law, as well as significant debt.

The court found that while the respondent's household income was higher, paying the full Guideline amount would cause undue hardship and detrimentally affect his ability to provide for his new family.

The court ordered a reduced child support amount of $400 per month and denied the applicant's request for retroactive support due to unexplained delay.

The moving party brought a motion to change a separation agreement, seeking to reduce his child support obligations.

He argued that his business failed and he never earned the $35,000 imputed income agreed upon in 2006.

The court found no material change in circumstances, noting the moving party persisted with an unprofitable business for six years despite having an engineering degree and an MBA.

The court concluded the moving party was intentionally underemployed and dismissed the motion to change, maintaining the imputed income of $35,000.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' one-year-old child, along with the right to travel without the respondent father's consent.

The father sought joint custody and proposed an access schedule that involved caring for the child while coaching basketball.

The court found the father's proposal unrealistic and unworkable given the child's age and need for supervision.

The court granted the mother sole custody, ordered access based on the mother's reasonable proposal, finalized child support based on imputed minimum wage income, and granted the mother the right to travel with the child without the father's consent.