Kulvinder Deol

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order for the pre-trial sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The appellant occupied the home and paid no child or spousal support, arguing that his payment of carrying costs on investment properties was sufficient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion.

The court noted that the appellant's failure to pay support left him with unclean hands, and his claim of high carrying costs undermined his argument that the parties could afford to retain the home pending further litigation.

The Father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his child support obligations for the parties' child, O.B., as of April 30, 2023, and to be reimbursed for overpayments.

The Mother opposed, arguing support should continue due to O.B.'s ongoing post-secondary studies.

The court interpreted the existing Chozik Order, which stipulated child support termination upon the child obtaining one post-secondary degree or diploma.

As O.B. completed her two-year college diploma in April 2023, the court found the termination clause enforceable.

The Mother's request for continued support was not properly before the court as she did not seek a variation in her response, and even if considered, insufficient evidence was provided to establish a material change in circumstances or the child's continued need for support.

The court determined the appropriate termination date for child support was August 31, 2023, allowing for a transition period.

The Father's motion to terminate child support was granted, and the Mother was ordered to repay any overpayments.

The applicant father and respondent mother sought an order for decision-making responsibility for their 6-year-old child.

The parties had resolved parenting time but remained in high conflict over health and education decisions, largely driven by the father's disproportionate anxiety regarding the child's health.

The court ordered that the mother have sole decision-making responsibility for health and education to reduce conflict and ensure stability.

The parties were granted shared decision-making responsibility for culture, language, religion, and significant extracurricular activities, as they demonstrated an ability to cooperate in these areas.

The father brought a motion to set aside a default judgment that granted the mother sole custody and ordered him to pay child support based on an imputed income of $335,400.

He argued he was unable to attend the uncontested trial and that the mother committed fraud on the court.

The court found the father did not act promptly and lacked a plausible excuse for his default.

While the court found the mother did not deliberately mislead the court, it acknowledged the father had an arguable defence regarding his income.

The motion to set aside was dismissed, but the father was permitted to bring a motion to change the order, provided he pays $15,000 in costs and provides extensive financial disclosure.