Vladimira Pavicevic

The applicant husband sought temporary spousal support 13 years after the parties' final separation.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the spousal support claim.

The court granted the wife's summary judgment motion, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding the husband's entitlement to spousal support.

The decision highlighted the extreme delay in bringing the claim, the lack of financial interdependence post-separation, the wife's role as primary caregiver and sole financial support for the children, and the husband's failure to provide a compelling explanation for the delay or objective evidence of financial contributions or a "family discount" on a matrimonial home.

In a family trial involving child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, equalization, sale of the matrimonial home, and occupational rent, the court found the applicant's financial disclosure inadequate and preferred the respondent's evidence on disputed issues.

The court determined that substantial unreported corporate and commission income arising from insurance and mortgage activities, including an improper insurance commission scheme, had to be included for support purposes, with limited deductions for legitimate expenses.

Child support arrears were fixed at $214,321 as of April 30, 2014, no spousal support was awarded because the applicant's income always exceeded the respondent's, and ongoing income of $95,000 was imputed from January 1, 2013.

The matrimonial home was ordered sold, the respondent received agreed credits and reimbursement for taxes and insurance, and the applicant's claim for occupational rent was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary child support and reduce arrears accumulated under a final order requiring him to pay $375 per month.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court found that while the father experienced a material change in circumstances by May 2009 (unemployment following layoffs), he was intentionally underemployed from May 2009 through May 2014.

The court imputed an annual income of $41,600 to the father based on his earning capacity as a certified drywall finisher, maintaining his support obligation at $375 per month for the retroactive period.

The court reduced arrears by $5,000 and ordered the father to repay remaining arrears at $500 per month, increasing to $675 per month following the child's adoption by the mother's new partner.

Two adult children applied for child support from their biological parents.

The children had been in the care of their maternal grandparents since 1996 pursuant to a court order.

The father claimed financial hardship and inability to pay, while the mother was receiving Ontario Works and later had those benefits terminated.

The court found the father's evidence regarding his financial circumstances to be evasive and misleading, and imputed income of $100,000 to him based on his actual income in prior years and unexplained deposits and expenditures.

The court ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2009, and ongoing support based on the imputed income.

The mother was ordered to pay a modest amount based on her actual income of approximately $14,800 per year.

The father was also ordered to contribute $25,000 toward one child's university expenses and one-third of the other child's post-secondary education costs.