Nav Zia Shokar

The parties separated in 2019 and sought orders regarding decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and spousal support for their two children.

The court granted the applicant father sole decision-making responsibility for the younger child's education, but ordered joint decision-making for health, religion, and extra-curricular activities.

A 5-5-2-2 shared parenting schedule was ordered.

The court found the respondent mother was not intentionally under-employed despite being terminated for cause, and ordered the applicant to pay set-off child support.

The court also held that private school tuition was not a section 7 extraordinary expense, ordered the applicant to pay retroactive child support, and dismissed the respondent's claim for spousal support.

The Applicant Father sought the sale of the matrimonial home and an investment property due to significant financial burden.

The Respondent Mother opposed the sale of the matrimonial home and brought a cross-motion for child and spousal support.

The court ordered the immediate sale of both properties, finding that the financial situation necessitated the sales and that the Mother's opposition was not based on oppressive conduct or substantial prejudice.

The Mother's support motion was adjourned until after the property sales.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking to restore an alleged 50/50 shared parenting status quo, claiming the applicant mother unilaterally withheld his parenting time.

The court found the motion was not urgent, as the mother had not withheld access but merely sought to return to the pre-pandemic status quo of alternate weekends.

The court ordered that the children primarily reside with the mother on an interim basis, with the father having parenting time on alternate weekends and Wednesday overnights.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the mother.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2015 order, seeking shared transportation for access and other variations.

The respondent mother sought to impute the father's income at $50,000 for child support purposes.

The court found the father was not intentionally underemployed and set his income at $32,000 based on his current full-time employment.

The court dismissed the father's request for shared transportation, finding no material change in circumstances regarding the mother's relocation.