3 total
The court imputed income to both a self-employed father and a mother earning unreported cash to determine child and spousal support in a shared parenting arrangement.
The trial primarily addressed child and spousal support obligations for the parties' two-year-old son.
The court determined the parties' incomes, including imputation for both the father's corporate income and the mother's personal income, finding the father deliberately under-employed and the mother earning unreported cash.
The court adjusted child support retroactively and prospectively based on imputed incomes and a new shared parenting arrangement.
Spousal support was ordered at a reduced amount from the temporary order, with an indefinite (reviewable) duration, and a significant overpayment by the father was ordered to be repaid by the mother through set-off against ongoing support.
The court denied the father's urgent motion for primary residence but ordered a parenting assessment.
The respondent father brought an urgent temporary motion seeking primary residence of the two children, alleging the applicant mother had mental health and addiction issues requiring treatment.
The court found insufficient evidence to establish the mother posed a danger to herself or the children, noting that professional assessments did not support such claims.
The court denied the father's request for immediate primary custody, maintaining the children's primary residence with the mother to ensure stability, given their recent move and enrollment in new schools.
An urgent s.30 assessment was ordered to evaluate the mother's parenting ability and the children's best interests and wishes.
The court dismissed the father's motion to return the child, prioritizing the mother's support services.
The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for the immediate return of the child's primary residence to Oxford County, alleging the respondent mother unilaterally relocated with the child to Scarborough without notice.
The mother argued she was fleeing family violence perpetrated by the father's mother and that her return to Scarborough was necessary due to her support network.
The court found the father did not consent to the move and acted promptly.
Despite the mother's failure to comply with notice provisions and her self-help actions, the court dismissed the father's motion, allowing the child to remain in Scarborough temporarily.
The decision was based on the child's best interests, particularly the mother's significant reliance on support services in Scarborough that would be jeopardized by a return to Oxford County.
