Matthew Fordjour

The applicant and respondent, common-law partners with two children, sought judicial determination on two outstanding issues following a consent order on custody and most access.

The respondent sought two additional days of access and a corresponding reduction in child support under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court granted one minor access extension (on consent) but denied the second, more significant access request, finding it not to be in the children's best interests due to the respondent's post-night shift demeanor and the chaotic impact on the children's routine.

Consequently, the respondent did not meet the 40% threshold for shared custody, and no change was made to the child support quantum.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent's pleadings for his willful non-compliance with a prior child support order and to vary the child support amount.

The respondent had unilaterally reduced payments and failed to file materials for the motion, requesting an adjournment which was denied.

The court found the respondent's conduct to be willful, flagrant, and calculated disobedience, intended to prolong litigation and deprive the children of support.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings and increased the child support amount based on the current custody arrangement and the respondent's substantial income.

The applicant sought sole custody of the child and permission to relocate with the child from Toronto to New Ross, Nova Scotia.

The respondent sought joint custody and opposed the relocation.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, finding her to be the primary caregiver and psychological parent, and permitted the relocation, noting the applicant's strong support system in New Ross and the child's established connection to the area.

The court also ordered child support based on the respondent's income and addressed section 7 expenses, while spousal support was waived by the applicant upon relocation being granted.

The applicant sought sole custody of the youngest child, child support for four children pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines, and retroactive child support from January 1, 2010.

The respondent sought joint custody and opposed the child support order.

The court determined the parties' incomes, assessed the respondent's claim of undue hardship under section 10 of the Guidelines, and found that while undue hardship existed, the respondent's household had a higher standard of living than the applicant's, precluding a reduction in support.

The court ordered ongoing child support with an offset arrangement and made a retroactive order from January 1, 2012.

Section 7 expenses were ordered only for the youngest child.