Kristen Lee Bucci

On a status hearing motion under Rule 48.14, the moving defendants sought dismissal of a commercial misrepresentation action for delay.

The court held that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, including difficulties arising from prior counsel's solicitor's lien and file transfer, and that the alleged prejudice was either attributable to the existence of the claim itself or too speculative to justify dismissal.

Balancing the plaintiff's right to a determination on the merits against the defendants' interest in timely litigation, the court declined to dismiss the action.

The parties were ordered to file an agreed timetable or return to the case management judge.

An uncontested family trial concerning custody, child support, and divorce following the parties’ separation.

The applicant sought sole custody of the child and guideline child support after the respondent failed to file an answer or financial statement and did not appear at trial.

The court accepted the applicant’s evidence regarding caregiving history, the child’s living circumstances, and concerns about the respondent’s alcohol use and parenting conduct.

Income was imputed to the respondent due to the absence of financial disclosure.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant with reasonable access to the respondent, ordered guideline child support based on imputed income, addressed section 7 expenses and insurance obligations, and granted a divorce.

The parties proceeded to trial on the issues of child and spousal support following an eight-year cohabitation.

The applicant father is the sole shareholder of a successful engineering company, while the respondent mother is employed at a modest income and has re-partnered.

The court imputed $90,000 of the corporation's pre-tax income to the father under s. 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, setting his income at $201,537.

Child support was determined based on a shared custody set-off, with a deduction for the biological father's actual support payments.

The mother was awarded compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support of $2,250 per month for a fixed duration of six years, with a retroactive award adjusted for notional tax consequences.

The applicant and respondent separated after an eight-year marriage.

The court determined child and spousal support obligations.

The court imputed $90,000 of pre-tax corporate income to the applicant under section 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, finding the corporation's retained earnings exceeded its legitimate business needs.

The court ordered the applicant to pay retroactive and ongoing child support based on a shared custody set-off, declining to reduce his obligation based on the respondent's new partner's income.

The court also awarded the respondent compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support of $2,250 per month for a duration of six years from the date of separation, plus retroactive support.

The moving party sought to rescind child support arrears and terminate ongoing support after spending five years incarcerated with no income.

The court considered the variation provisions of s. 17 of the Divorce Act and the Child Support Guidelines, including the principles governing rescission of arrears and imputing income.

It held that the payor had no present or past capacity to pay during incarceration and that imputing income during that period would be irrational.

The court also found that a possible future residential school settlement did not constitute future capacity to pay arrears that accrued when the payor had no income.

The arrears were rescinded and ongoing support was varied to zero, subject to future variation if circumstances change.

The applicant brought a motion to change a temporary order that had previously eliminated child support due to the respondent’s unemployment and anticipated access transportation costs following the applicant’s relocation with the child.

The court found a material change in circumstances because the respondent had since obtained full-time employment with significantly increased income.

The court considered the allocation of access transportation costs, noting that while non-custodial parents often bear such costs, the law does not require this in every case.

Given that the relocation created substantial travel expenses and the parties had historically shared those costs, the court determined it remained equitable to continue sharing them.

A temporary child support order was made, adjusting table support by accounting for child care expenses and a contribution by the applicant toward access transportation costs.

The appellant appealed an order under The Hague Convention requiring a child to be returned to Australia so Australian courts could assume jurisdiction over custody and access.

The trial judge found the child was habitually resident in Australia based on the appellant's declarations and actions indicating a settled intention to stay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the trial judge correctly applied the jurisprudence and that the evidence fully supported the habitual residence finding.

The appeal was dismissed.