Lyle Belkin

The applicant father sought a refund of child support and section 7 expenses paid for his adult son's post-secondary education.

The father had continued to pay the full table amount of support while the son lived away from home, and argued that many of the section 7 expenses claimed by the respondent mother were already covered by the table amount.

The court found that the son was required to contribute to his own education from summer earnings and grants, and that expenses such as food, utilities, and toiletries were covered by the table support.

The court ordered the mother to reimburse the father $20,822.73 for overpaid section 7 expenses and support paid after the son began working full-time.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2005 final order regarding child support, arguing a material change in circumstances because both children had moved to live exclusively with her and stopped attending private school.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered the respondent father to pay retroactive Table child support based on the dates of effective notice.

The court also ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of section 7 expenses, including post-secondary education costs, and dismissed his request to reapportion mediation fees, finding that issue had been settled.

In a family law proceeding, the court conducted a case management conference call with counsel to address trial preparation and streamline the issues.

The parties continued narrowing the matters in dispute and working to shorten the anticipated trial.

The court directed that a further conference call be scheduled to continue case management and facilitate efficient trial preparation.

The wife commenced an application for divorce, custody, and property equalization in Ontario.

The husband, who had commenced competing proceedings in Nigeria, brought a motion to dismiss the Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction.

The court found that the wife had prima facie established that she was ordinarily resident in Ontario for at least one year preceding the application, satisfying the Divorce Act residency requirement.

However, the court ordered a trial of an issue to determine whether Ontario or Nigeria is the more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens), as there was insufficient evidence regarding Nigerian family law, the validity of the marriage, and the parties' international property holdings.