Marie Tukara

Following a motion concerning interim child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party had succeeded in imputing income to the responding party under s. 19(1)(h) of the Child Support Guidelines by grossing up dividend income received from a solely‑owned corporation and also succeeded on the commencement date of increased interim support.

The responding party argued for divided success, but the court rejected that position and found the moving party was presumptively entitled to costs.

However, the court reduced the amount sought because the successful party failed to serve a Rule 18 offer to settle.

Costs were fixed and ordered payable forthwith.

On a motion for interim child support, the court considered whether a payor parent who received income from a wholly owned corporation through dividends rather than salary should have income adjusted for child support purposes.

After applying Schedule III s. 5 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court held that a further adjustment under s. 19(1)(h) was appropriate because dividend income taxed at a lower rate did not fairly reflect the payor’s resources.

The court relied on authorities addressing income derived from wholly owned corporations and the need for consistent treatment between salaried earners and corporate payors.

Income was therefore grossed up beyond the actual dividend received to approximate the payor’s available income.

The court also rejected the payor’s claim that parenting time exceeded 40% and ordered interim child support and arrears.

The applicant wife brought a motion for the Ontario court to assume jurisdiction over all matters in their family law case, including divorce, equalization, and support.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion to stay the divorce claim, arguing that he had already commenced a divorce proceeding in Poland and that Poland was the more appropriate forum.

The court found that it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.

Applying the Van Breda framework, the court held that the husband failed to show that Poland was a clearly more appropriate forum, noting that the parties resided in Ontario throughout their marriage, the property issues were already conceded to Ontario, and a Polish divorce could prejudice the wife's spousal support claims.

The husband's motion was dismissed and the wife's motion was granted.