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 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 father and respondent mother both sought reconsideration of the court's previous calculation of the child's hockey expenses.

The applicant also sought production of the respondent's bank and credit card statements, which the court dismissed as untimely and likely to cause undue delay.

The court set a timetable for written submissions on the recalculation of hockey expenses.

Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to produce specific documentation regarding the child's attendance at a private academy to determine whether the child remains a full-time student for the purposes of child support.

The applicant sought clarification and amendments to a previous decision regarding child support arrears and section 7 expenses.

The court adjusted the arrears calculations for 2014 and 2016 to reflect actual payments made.

The court also reviewed the respondent's claimed hockey expenses, finding them reasonably incurred, but deducted a previously undisclosed refund.

Finally, the court determined that the parties' adult child remained a child of the marriage entitled to support while attending a private academy full-time for high school academic upgrading.

The court issued a post-decision endorsement providing further directions on child support arrears and section 7 expenses.

The applicant submitted an affidavit that went beyond the court's previous request by attempting to challenge the court's interpretation of prior orders, which the court refused to consider.

The court directed the respondent to file an affidavit responding to the applicant's evidence on actual payments made, hockey expenses, and the 18-year-old child's post-secondary plans, failing which the applicant's evidence would be accepted.

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.

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.