Kamaljit Kaur Saini

The applicant sought to impute income to the respondent following his early retirement, retroactive spousal and child support, section 7 expenses for their son's post-secondary education, and a further equalization payment.

The court found the respondent was intentionally underemployed by retiring early and imputed his income at $96,286.

Spousal support was varied and continued, while child support was found to have ended in June 2020.

The claims for retroactive section 7 expenses and a further equalization payment were dismissed.

The applicant submitted written submissions pointing out errors in the court's previous DivorceMate calculations for spousal support.

The respondent did not reply.

The court acknowledged the errors, which included failing to update annual income, override child support, and remove special expenses from year to year.

The court corrected the calculations and issued a corrigendum updating the spousal support arrears and ongoing monthly obligations.

The court considered costs for a motion and cross-motion regarding child support and post-secondary education expenses.

Both parties claimed to be the successful party.

The court found divided success, as the applicant succeeded on obtaining an order for the respondent's contribution towards post-secondary expenses but failed to increase ongoing child support.

The respondent claimed success on the interpretation of the separation agreement regarding "double-dipping." Given the divided success, the court deemed it inappropriate to award costs to either party.

The applicant sought to compel the respondent to comply with a separation agreement regarding post-secondary expenses for their child and to increase monthly child support by imputing a higher income to the respondent.

The respondent cross-moved to reduce child support and adjust Section 7 expenses.

The court found the respondent was not intentionally under-employed despite reducing extra work due to new family responsibilities, thus declining to impute a higher income.

The court interpreted the separation agreement to exclude living expenses from Section 7 post-secondary costs, reducing the total amount payable by both parents.

The child's contribution to education was not deducted from the parents' share.

The appellant father appealed an order granting retroactive child support and summary judgment enforcing a $24,000 equalization payment under a separation agreement.

The father argued his bankruptcy discharge released him from the equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the retroactive child support award, finding the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose significant income increases.

However, the Court set aside the summary judgment regarding the equalization payment, finding a triable issue existed as to whether the payment was actually in the nature of support, which would survive bankruptcy under s. 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.