Lyle Charles Belkin

The applicant mother moved for temporary child and spousal support.

The court addressed whether to impute income to the respondent father, who had started his own business after losing his job, and whether the mother was entitled to spousal support.

The court found the father intentionally under-employed and imputed an income of $99,969.50 for child support purposes.

The request for spousal support was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order regarding child support and section 7 expenses for his three children.

Key issues included the applicant's income, whether an adult child (Ivana) remained a child of the marriage for support purposes while pursuing a second degree, and the calculation of support and arrears for another adult child (Jelena) and a minor child (Luka).

The court found no material change in circumstances to impute a higher income to the applicant beyond a conceded increase.

It ruled that support for Ivana ceased upon completion of her first degree, rejecting the respondent's claim for medical school expenses.

Support for Jelena was suspended for 2012 due to her employment but continued for 2013 despite part-time studies due to a mental health condition, payable directly to her after age 22 until age 23.

The court clarified the interpretation of section 7 expenses for post-secondary education and hockey, largely upholding the original consent order's framework.

Arrears were calculated based on these findings.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a divorce judgment from February 2013, alleging non-service of the divorce application and seeking an equalization of net family properties.

The court found that the affidavit of service was false, but there was no evidence the applicant knew of the fraud.

The court determined that the parties had separated much earlier than the respondent claimed, validating the basis for the divorce.

The respondent failed to act promptly upon learning of the divorce and provided no adequate explanation for the significant delay (at least 18 months, more likely three years) in bringing the motion.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, noting that any claim for equalization under the Family Law Act would require a separate motion for an extension of time.