Michael Mauro

The applicant brought a motion seeking production of the respondent’s income tax returns and notices of assessment, adjustment of child support, and contributions to extended health coverage for the parties’ children.

The court found that the motion was procedurally improper under the Family Law Rules and should have been brought as a motion to change a final order under Rule 15.

Although the applicant was initially unaware of the procedural error, the respondent’s counsel warned her that continuing the motion would result in a request for dismissal and costs.

The matter was ultimately resolved outside the court proceedings and the parties agreed the motion should be dismissed.

The court ordered the applicant to pay modest costs reflecting the respondent’s attendance and preparation.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a 2009 child support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

The parties consented to increasing the base child support to $572 per month and changing the annual review date.

The court dismissed the father's request to eliminate his contribution to the child's tutoring expenses, finding they remained necessary extraordinary expenses under s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court also declined to order mandatory RESP contributions or require the father to contribute to a potential Girl Guides trip to Europe due to insufficient evidence.

Arrears were fixed at $560.50 and no costs were awarded.

The mother brought a motion to vary a child support order for two adult children attending post-secondary education.

The motion judge ordered the father to pay child support pursuant to s. 3(2)(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines but provided no reasons explaining how the quantum was determined.

The father appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's reasons were inadequate and failed to consider the necessary factors under s. 3(2)(b), such as the financial ability of each parent and the means and needs of the children.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The complainant alleged sex discrimination after being denied membership in the Italian Society of Port Arthur, an organization of men of Italian descent.

The Society argued it was exempt under section 18 of the Human Rights Code as a fraternal organization primarily engaged in serving the interests of its members.

The Board of Inquiry found that the Society met the three criteria of section 18: it is a fraternal organization, it is primarily engaged in serving the interests of its members, and its membership is restricted to persons similarly identified.

The complaint was dismissed.