Julie Zimmerman

The respondent on a motion to change brought an interim motion seeking retroactive child support from 2020 through 2025 and an order compelling the applicant father to finalize the divorce.

The court held that despite the general discouragement of interim motions within motions to change, the threshold was met where the material facts regarding the child's residence and the parties' incomes were largely undisputed.

Interim child support orders were made for 2021 through 2025 based on Line 15000 incomes, without prejudice to the final hearing.

The court also ordered the father to proceed with the divorce within 30 days, finding no legal disadvantage warranting delay and rejecting the argument that the divorce should await resolution of overpayment claims.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding the parenting schedule, child support, and section 7 expenses for their two children.

The respondent father sought a week-about shared parenting schedule, while the applicant mother sought to maintain the status quo.

The court found that a week-about schedule was not in the children's best interests pending trial, but granted the father one additional overnight visit.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis in accordance with the Guidelines.

The court also resolved minor disputes regarding extracurricular activities and sports equipment.

The applicant father brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for failing to comply with access and counselling provisions of a prior consent order.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking sole custody, flexible access based on the child's wishes, and restrictions on the father's communications.

The court found the mother in contempt, ruling that her permissiveness empowered the child to disregard the order, and that a parent has a positive obligation to ensure compliance.

The mother's requests for sole custody and flexible access were denied, as they would curtail the father-child relationship.

However, some communication restrictions on the father were granted, with amendments, and made mutual where appropriate.

The mother was ordered to purge her contempt.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change child support.

Although the applicant mother's motion to change was dismissed on the merits, the court awarded her costs due to the respondent father's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide required financial disclosure, unilaterally reducing child support payments, refusing to contribute to special and extraordinary expenses, and refusing to engage in mediation.

The mother obtained substantially all relief sought through her comprehensive offer to settle.

The court fixed costs at $22,000 inclusive of HST, representing close to full recovery, to sanction the father's unreasonable behaviour and encourage compliance with court orders and separation agreement obligations.

Motion to Change regarding a separation agreement dated October 20, 2007.

The applicant (mother) sought financial disclosure from the respondent (father), retroactive adjustment of child support from January 1, 2012, and an order fixing arrears and special and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent disputed the claims and sought retroactive readjustment claiming overpayment of child support.

The court found that the respondent failed to provide required annual financial disclosure and drew negative inferences from his conduct.

The motion was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove a significant or long-lasting change in the respondent's financial circumstances.

However, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's share of retroactive special expenses and costs were awarded to the applicant due to the respondent's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide disclosure.