Madhulika Dutt

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside an uncontested trial order that granted the applicant mother sole decision-making, parenting time, child support, and severed the divorce.

The court applied the five-part test from Mountain View Farms for setting aside a default order under Family Law Rule 25(19).

The court found that the respondent did not act promptly, had no plausible excuse for his default despite being served multiple times, and only raised an arguable case on the merits regarding parenting time and decision-making.

Balancing the factors, the court concluded it was not just to set aside the order.

The motion was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a previous motion where the Applicant sought security for costs.

The Applicant was partially successful on the original motion, being awarded $25,000 out of a requested $50,000.

The Applicant sought $4,386.43 in costs on a partial indemnity scale, while the Respondent argued against any costs award.

The court awarded the Applicant $4,000 in costs, reducing the amount slightly to reflect the Applicant's partial success on the underlying motion.

The court rejected the Respondent's arguments that the costs award would be punitive or that the application should be dismissed or costs reserved.

The applicant wife brought a motion for security for costs against the respondent husband in a family law proceeding.

The husband had made numerous claims in his Answer, including requests for witnesses to testify about a criminal matter for which he had also commenced a separate civil action.

The court found that many of the husband's claims were a waste of time or a nuisance and that he had no assets in Ontario.

The court granted the motion and ordered the husband to post $25,000 as security for costs.

The applicant sought child support for her son Lukas from the respondent father.

The central issue was determining the respondent's annual income for child support purposes.

The respondent, a self-employed plumber, declared minimal income of approximately $9,744 annually while maintaining expenses of $55,674 and paying $665 monthly in child support for another child.

The court found this financial picture implausible and drew an adverse inference that the respondent was earning substantially more than declared.

The court imputed annual net income of $45,000 based on the respondent's prior employment history and current lifestyle, resulting in monthly child support of $418 and arrears of $14,186.

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated after a 16-year marriage.

The court determined issues of equalization, child support, spousal support, and access.

The court imputed $14,400 in annual cash income to the respondent from his automotive business, setting his income for child support purposes at $102,729.67.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $173,430.90.

Spousal support of $600 per month was made final due to the applicant's economic disadvantage.

The respondent was granted Saturday access to the children, but overnight access was denied due to safety concerns and the lack of a proper plan.