Maria N. Sirivar

Appeal from a motion judge's order determining child support obligations.

The appellant sought to reduce child support based on reported lower income, but the motion judge found the appellant had engaged in deliberate non-disclosure and evasion of financial disclosure obligations, hiding income through a corporation.

The motion judge attributed significantly higher income to the appellant and ordered child support payments over twelve months rather than the ten months specified in a prior consent order.

On appeal, the court found one palpable and overriding error regarding double-counting of repaid corporate loans but otherwise upheld the motion judge's decision.

The court reduced the attributed income and corresponding child support amounts but maintained the twelve-month payment structure.

A child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act in which the Halton Children's Aid Society sought a finding that a child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(f) and (g) due to emotional harm caused by parental conflict, particularly the mother's unfounded allegations of abuse against the father.

The Society sought placement of the child in the father's custody with supervised access for the mother.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or, alternatively, joint and equally shared custody.

The court found the child was in need of protection, placed the child in the father's exclusive care and custody, and ordered supervised access for the mother under a one-year supervision order.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action as statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, concerning unpaid pension contributions.

The court found that the plaintiff ought to have known that litigation was an appropriate means to remedy her claim by October 27, 2011, given clear denials of liability from the defendant and the plaintiff's representation by counsel.

As the action was commenced on September 10, 2015, it was outside the two-year limitation period.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The Applicant Mother sought past and future child support, section 7 expenses, and life insurance premiums from the Respondent Father.

The central issue was the Father's income for support purposes.

The court found the Father intentionally underemployed, pursuing an unrealistic career as an actor/stuntman, and imputed income to him for various years.

The court also determined child support arrears, section 7 expense arrears (daycare, dental, life insurance premiums), and set future support obligations and caps on section 7 contributions.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to his repeated breaches of court orders, failure to provide financial disclosure, and failure to pay child support and costs awards.

The respondent, a lawyer representing himself, had failed to comply with multiple disclosure orders over the course of the litigation despite numerous extensions and indulgences granted by the court.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be willful and struck his pleadings in their entirety on a without prejudice basis, permitting reinstatement upon full compliance with outstanding orders.

The applicant was permitted to proceed on an uncontested basis with her existing motion to change and was granted leave to amend to seek imputed income and changes to custody and access.

The applicant father sought a final or temporary order for sole custody of two young children, retroactive to April 11, 2014, when the Children's Aid Society placed them in his care following an investigation into alleged abuse by the mother.

The father also sought to restrict the mother's access.

The mother opposed the custody motion and sought to maintain joint custody pending trial, arguing she had cooperated fully with investigations and had taken steps to address concerns.

The court found that while a de facto sole custody arrangement had developed, there was insufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances to warrant changing the joint custody status quo on an interim basis.

The court dismissed the father's motion for custody but maintained primary residence with the father while preserving joint custody and ordering the parties to craft a meaningful access schedule.

A temporary care and custody motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child with significant medical and developmental needs.

The child was apprehended from the mother's care due to substance abuse and neglect.

The maternal grandmother sought placement of the child in her care, subject to society supervision, or alternatively, expanded unsupervised access.

The court found that the society met its onus to establish that the child's best interests required remaining in the care and custody of the society.

The court dismissed the maternal grandmother's application, finding concerns regarding her ability to follow court orders and society directions, protect the child from the mother, and meet the child's complex medical and developmental needs.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside and/or change a final default order made by Justice Zisman on December 5, 2012, which granted custody to the applicant mother, imputed the respondent's income at $60,000 per year, and ordered child and spousal support.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis, alleging bad faith conduct by the respondent.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably throughout the proceedings by providing inconsistent income information in multiple sworn affidavits and failing to comply with disclosure orders and prior costs awards.

However, the court found the evidence fell short of establishing bad faith.

Costs were awarded to the applicant at $3,500.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements and taxes, payable within 30 days or at $150.00 per month commencing June 1, 2014, taking into account the respondent's current financial circumstances and receipt of social assistance.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside a final order granting custody to the mother and imposing child and spousal support obligations.

The father claimed he was not properly served and sought to have the matter decided on its merits.

The court found serious credibility issues with the father's evidence regarding service but agreed to consider the motion on its merits in the interests of justice.

The court examined the father's income for support purposes and found that despite the father's claims of earning only $20,000 annually, the evidence demonstrated income of at least $56,000.

The motion to set aside was dismissed, but the matter was set for a motion to change hearing to address the father's alleged change in circumstances and his claim for access.