Leah Simeone

This decision addresses a motion by the respondent mother seeking enforcement of a costs order against the applicant father as support enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The court analyzed whether legal costs awarded or consented to in family proceedings can be designated as support enforceable by FRO, focusing on whether the costs arose "in relation to the issue of support or maintenance" as required by the statute.

The court found that the underlying trial primarily concerned parenting issues, with minimal focus on child support, and that the mother failed to provide evidence that the legal costs related to support.

Consequently, the motion to enforce costs as support was dismissed, though the mother was permitted to bring an alternative enforcement motion under Rule 8 of the Family Law Rules.

This decision addresses a 4.5-day uncontested trial regarding retroactive and prospective child support, special expenses, and related relief for the parties' 17-year-old son.

The court struck the applicant's pleadings for non-compliance with court orders and deadlines, allowing her to participate only on parenting and financial statement issues.

The court found the applicant underemployed, imputed income to her, and ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as a proportional share of special expenses.

The court also addressed security for child support via life insurance and travel consent for the child.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the applicant mother for denying him access to their four-year-old daughter in breach of temporary access orders dated October 11, 2018 and April 8, 2019.

The mother denied access based on the child's disclosures of alleged sexual abuse by the father, which triggered investigations by police and child protection services.

The court found the mother in contempt only for the period from October 7, 2020 onward, after investigations closed without substantiation and the father's bail conditions were varied to permit contact for family court purposes.

The court imposed a gradual resumption of access with financial penalties for missed visits rather than the requested change of custody.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to vary a prior order that restricted his child from being in the presence of his life partner.

The applicant sought the variation because he and his partner were setting up a new household where the child would have overnight access.

The court found that the creation of the new household constituted a material change in circumstances that was not previously contemplated.

Concluding that it was in the child's best interests to have maximum contact with her father, the court granted the motion and varied the order to remove the restriction.