Mimi Marello

The mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The father had unilaterally reduced his child support payments and failed to provide annual financial disclosure, despite earning a six-figure income.

The court ordered retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, finding the father's conduct blameworthy and noting that his prior refusal to contribute made advance consultation for expenses meaningless.

The court also rejected the father's argument that support should be terminated due to his estrangement from the adult children, finding insufficient evidence that the children unilaterally and unjustifiably rejected him.

The applicant and respondent separated in 2016.

The court heard interim motions, resolving most by consent.

The primary contested issue was the respondent's motion to find the applicant in civil contempt for denying him access to their children, Connor and Austin, contrary to an October 2017 order.

The court found that the applicant deliberately and willfully breached the order by unilaterally suspending access, citing concerns about the children's well-being and Connor's stated refusal to visit.

However, applying the high standard for contempt, the court declined to find her in contempt, giving her the benefit of the doubt due to some objective basis for her concerns and the impending trial.

The court emphasized that a parent cannot unilaterally disregard court orders or abdicate parental responsibility by deferring to a child's wishes regarding access.

The Applicant sought an interim parenting schedule, including a small adjustment for summer holidays.

The Respondent cross-moved for a different schedule, an order requiring the Applicant to undergo an alcohol dependency assessment, and disclosure of banking and credit card statements.

The court granted the Applicant's proposed interim parenting schedule, finding it reasonable and in the child's best interests.

The Respondent's requests for a further alcohol assessment and additional disclosure were dismissed, as she failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the alcohol dependency allegations or demonstrate the relevance and proportionality of the requested financial records.

The applicant father brought a motion for access to his two children, whom he had not seen for nearly a year and a half due to a no-contact order following criminal convictions for assaulting and threatening them.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) and dismiss the access motion pending the OCL's recommendations.

The court ordered that the OCL be requested to ascertain the children's views and preferences, with a private psychotherapist to be engaged if the OCL declined.

The no-contact order was modified to accommodate the involvement of the OCL or the therapist.

Costs were reserved.