Mark LaFrance

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support and section 7 expenses for the period prior to giving effective notice in October 2019.

The parties had a 2010 separation agreement that included provisions for annual review and disclosure upon request, which neither party utilized until 2019.

The court found the mother's delay in seeking disclosure was not adequately explained and dismissed her claim for retroactive section 7 expenses because she failed to follow the agreement's protocol.

However, noting the father's significant, albeit unrealized, increase in income, the court ordered a lump sum of $8,500 in retroactive child support for the period prior to November 2019 to ensure a fair standard of support.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's family law application via a summary judgment motion, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $7,500.

The applicant, who had repeatedly delayed proceedings, failed to file responding materials, and ignored previous costs orders, argued she should pay no costs due to financial hardship and health issues.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, finding her litigation conduct unacceptable and her claims of ignorance of the process not credible.

The court ordered the applicant to pay $6,500 in costs to the respondent, emphasizing the need to sanction inappropriate litigation behavior and achieve proportionality.

The parties resolved parenting issues prior to trial, leaving retroactive and ongoing child support in dispute.

The father, an IT professional, had previously paid support based on an unwritten 'rolling average' of his income.

After losing his job, he made significant RRSP withdrawals and reduced his support payments.

The court rejected the rolling average approach as it was not in writing, and included the RRSP withdrawals in the father's income for child support purposes, finding he failed to prove they were used primarily for legal fees.

The father was ordered to pay $15,184 in retroactive child support and $463 in retroactive section 7 expenses.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim joint custody of the parties' three-year-old child, as well as determinations on child and spousal support.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim sole custody, retroactive and ongoing child support for both the parties' child and her older child from a previous relationship, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The court granted interim sole custody to the mother, finding that the parties' inability to communicate and the child's lack of overnight visits with the father militated against joint custody.

The court ordered the father to pay ongoing child support for the parties' child and spousal support, but dismissed the claims for retroactive support and child support for the older child, finding the father did not stand in loco parentis.