2 total
The court dismissed the applicant's request to reduce child support, imputing income due to intentional unemployment and ordering payment of arrears.
The applicant sought to vary child support and reduce arrears, claiming a material change in circumstances and undue hardship.
The respondent opposed and brought a cross-application for financial disclosure, variation of child support, and reimbursement for Section 7 expenses.
The court found the applicant intentionally unemployed/underemployed, had access to significant income, and failed to provide full financial disclosure despite multiple orders.
The applicant's claims were dismissed.
The court imputed income to the applicant, ordered her to pay substantial child support arrears and ongoing support, and to secure health benefits and life insurance for the child.
An Ontario court has jurisdiction under section 21 of the ISO Act to make a child support order even if a valid foreign support order exists but its registration was set aside.
This appeal concerned the jurisdiction of an Ontario court to make a child support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 (ISO Act) when a foreign support order from Finland already existed, but its registration in Ontario had been set aside due to the payor's fraudulent misrepresentations.
The Superior Court had quashed the Ontario Court of Justice's order for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that two valid support orders could not coexist.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 21 of the ISO Act explicitly grants Ontario courts jurisdiction to hear a new support application in such circumstances, especially given the payor's deceptive conduct.
The court emphasized the ISO Act's purpose of facilitating support enforcement and dismissed concerns about potential double recovery.
