Matthew Madott

The applicant mother moved for temporary child and spousal support.

The court addressed whether to impute income to the respondent father, who had started his own business after losing his job, and whether the mother was entitled to spousal support.

The court found the father intentionally under-employed and imputed an income of $99,969.50 for child support purposes.

The request for spousal support was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an interim order granting her sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the parties' four-year-old child, along with a modified parenting schedule for the respondent father.

The mother argued the current schedule caused the child anxiety, while the father sought a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule.

The court granted the mother interim sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, finding it in the child's best interests.

The court rejected the father's 2-2-3 proposal due to uncertainty but modified his parenting time to shorter, more frequent visits to reduce the child's anxiety while maintaining regular contact.

The respondent wife brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant husband's claim for an equalization payment as statute-barred.

The central issue was the parties' date of separation, with the wife claiming 1986 and the husband claiming 2015.

The court reviewed the conflicting evidence regarding their living arrangements, financial interdependence, and relationship dynamics over a 29-year period.

Concluding that credibility issues prevented a determination on the written record alone, the court declined to grant summary judgment and ordered a time-limited mini-trial to hear oral evidence.

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 mother sought sole custody of two children and permission to relocate with them from Ontario to Okotoks, Alberta.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought joint or shared custody with the children remaining in Ontario.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer investigated and recommended the children remain in Ontario.

The court applied the best interests of the child test and found that the applicant failed to discharge her burden of proving the proposed move was in the children's best interests.

The court granted the applicant sole custody conditional on her remaining in Ontario within 100 km of Oakville, with the custody reverting to the respondent if she relocated beyond that radius without consent or court order.

The respondent was successful in defeating the appellant's motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing a stay motion.

The respondent sought costs of $8,026.68 for the motion and additional costs for the appeal that was commenced as of right before the appellant realized leave was required.

The court noted the underlying action was a Rule 76 claim for $22,000 in unpaid rent, making the costs claimed disproportionate.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, fixing the costs of the motion at $3,700 and the costs of the abandoned appeal at $1,800.

The defendant tenant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion to stay the plaintiff landlord's action for unpaid rent.

The tenant argued the dispute should be arbitrated pursuant to a shareholder agreement.

The court granted the extension of time but denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion that the rent dispute arose solely under the lease, which contained no arbitration clause.