Moxi Sahi

The moving party sought to terminate all past, present and future child and spousal support obligations fixed by an earlier final order that had imputed income after repeated disclosure failures.

The court held that a motion to change cannot be used as a collateral appeal from the original support order and that the moving party bore the onus of proving a material change in circumstances under s. 17 of the Divorce Act and the Guidelines.

Applying the framework in Colucci, the court found the alleged post-order income decline and inability to work were not established by reliable, complete and credible evidence, and that the moving party remained affected by the same concerns of intentional underemployment and inadequate disclosure that grounded the original imputation.

The court admitted Linked-In profile evidence, gave little or no weight to cursory medical notes, found blameworthy conduct and persistent non-disclosure, and dismissed the motion to change.

The applicant sought spousal support and equalization of net family property following the breakdown of a 13-year arranged marriage.

The respondent abandoned the applicant in Dubai, retained her Canadian identification, and ceased participating in the proceedings, resulting in his pleadings being struck.

The court imputed an annual income of $90,000 to the respondent based on his credit card spending and mortgage applications, as he failed to provide financial disclosure.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $229,508, retroactive spousal support of $40,950, and ongoing indefinite spousal support of $1,700 per month, noting the applicant's economic disadvantage from immigrating to Canada and her inability to work in her profession.

This trial decision addresses corollary relief following a marital separation, focusing on financial issues including income imputation, child support, section 7 expenses, equalization of net family property, and spousal support.

The court imputed a higher income to one spouse due to non-disclosure and unreliable testimony, leading to orders for retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as a significant equalization payment.

Spousal support obligations were deemed satisfied by a prior judgment.

The court also considered and denied a request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.