Margaret Teixeira

The father brought a motion to change a 2011 final order regarding child support and section 7 expenses for their 21-year-old child.

The court found a material change in circumstances occurred when the child moved in with the father in 2018.

The court imputed an annual income of $75,000 to the mother, finding her intentionally unemployed.

A budget of $28,000 per year was set for the child's post-secondary education, to be shared proportionately.

The mother's claims for retroactive support and section 7 expenses were largely dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion for expanded parenting time on a step-up basis for the parties' 4-year-old son.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, alleging past abuse and arguing the father was unengaged in the child's upbringing.

The court found the mother's position inflexible and not focused on the child's best interests, noting that the current arrangement of brief visits at a mall was insufficient for bonding.

The court granted the father's proposed step-up parenting plan and awarded him $12,000 in costs.

The applicant was previously successful on an urgent motion for the return of her children, who were unlawfully withheld by the respondent.

The court determined the quantum and scale of costs for that motion.

Finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by withholding the children without justification, keeping them out of school, and intending to inflict financial and emotional harm, the court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs of $5,545.46 pursuant to Family Law Rule 24(8).