Court File and Parties
DATE: November 19, 2024 COURT FILE NO.: D42445/22 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
VIVIEN ONYINYE OBITULATA-UGWU
APPLICANT
- and –
CHENEDU KENNETH UGWU
RESPONDENT
COUNSEL: Theodora J. Oprea, for the Applicant Acting in Person, for the Respondent
HEARD: NOVEMBER 18, 2024
JUSTICE S.B. SHERR
Reasons for Decision
Part One – Introduction
[1] This was the trial of the parties’ motions to change the support terms contained in the final order of Justice Carole Curtis dated July 31, 2023 (the existing order).
[2] The existing order provides that the respondent (the father) pay child support to the applicant (the mother) for the parties’ two children (the children) of $1,533 each month, starting on August 1, 2023. In addition, it provides that the father pay spousal support of $500 each month to the mother, starting on August 1, 2023.
[3] The father seeks an order that the existing order for child and spousal support be changed, based on his actual income, as follows:
a) His employment insurance (EI) income from February 20, 2024 until April 17, 2024.
b) His employment income, at the annual rate of $80,000, from April 17, 2024 until November 7, 2024.
c) His EI income from November 7, 2024, and on an ongoing basis.
[4] The father proposed that support be reviewed once he obtains employment.
[5] The mother claims that the father is and has been deliberately under-employed or unemployed. She asks that the father’s motion to change be dismissed. She also asks that child support be increased to $1,598 each month, starting on September 1, 2023, based on the father’s 2023 income of $110,290. Lastly, she asks for an order that the father require leave of the court prior to commencing any future court proceeding, including a motion to change or other motion.
[6] The court read the affidavits and financial statements filed by the parties. Both parties testified and were cross-examined. No one else testified.
[7] The issues for this court to determine are:
a) What, if any, income should be imputed to the father, based on his alleged intentional unemployment or under-employment, for the purpose of this support analysis?
b) Based on the court’s assessment of the father’s income, has there been a material change in circumstances that warrants changing spousal support? If so, what change should be made to the existing spousal support order?
c) Based on the court’s assessment of the father’s income, has there been a change in circumstances that warrants changing child support? If so, what change should be made to the existing child support order?
Part Two – Background facts
[8] The father is 42 years old. The mother is 34 years old.
[9] The parties were married in September 2013 in Nigeria.
[10] The parties have two children. The oldest child is 8 years old. She was born in Nigeria. The youngest child is 2 years old. She was born in Canada.
[11] The parties moved to Calgary in September 2019. The father returned to Nigeria in October 2019 and rejoined the mother and the older child in Calgary in November 2020.
[12] The father moved to Ontario in March 2021. The mother and the older child joined him in Toronto in April 2021.
[13] The parties separated on August 2, 2021, after the father was charged with assaulting the mother. The mother was pregnant with their second child at the time. The parties have not reconciled.
[14] The children have always resided with the mother.
[15] The mother issued an application in this court for parenting and support orders on March 12, 2022.
[16] On June 15, 2022, Justice Curtis ordered the father to pay temporary child support of $1,777 each month, based on an imputed annual income to him of $124,999, starting on July 1, 2022.
[17] On November 30, 2022, on consent, Justice Curtis ordered the father to pay spousal support of $1,184 each month to the mother, starting on December 1, 2022.
[18] On February 22, 2023, on consent, Justice Curtis ordered that the mother have sole decision-making responsibility for the children.
[19] On July 31, 2023, on consent, Justice Curtis made the existing order. In that order, she also ordered that the father have parenting time with the children on alternate weekends from Saturday to Sunday.
[20] The father issued his motion to change on April 12, 2024, based on the termination of his employment on February 20, 2024.
[21] The mother issued her response to motion to change on April 23, 2024.
[22] The father was $17,329 in support arrears, as of August 20, 2024, according to the records of the Director of the Family Responsibility Office (the Director).
Part Three – Positions and evidence of the parties
3.1 The father
[23] The father was trained and employed as an engineer in Nigeria. He received his PhD in engineering from the University of Nigeria.
[24] The father is not qualified to work as an engineer in Canada. He has worked as a manager of maintenance and as a manager of packaging at companies in Canada, often doing both jobs at the same time.
[25] The father testified that his work history in Canada has been as follows:
a) March 2021 – April 2021 – He worked for Labatt’s Brewery in London as a brewing process manager. He testified he left this job for a better job in Toronto.
b) April 2021 to August 2022 – He worked for New Brunswick Bierworks (Bierworks) in Toronto as a maintenance manager and as a packaging manager. He was paid $125,000 annually. He quit this job on September 28, 2022.
c) September 28, 2022 to November 7, 2022 – He was unemployed.
d) November 7, 2022 to October 2023 – He was employed as head of maintenance and engineering at Ozery Bakery. His base annual salary was $105,000. He was also eligible to receive a 10% annual bonus. He deposed he resigned from this job because he found a better job.
e) October 2023 to February 20, 2024 – He was employed as head of maintenance and packaging at Treasure Mills in Aurora. His annual salary was $125,000. He deposed he was dismissed from this job without cause.
f) February 20, 2024 to April 17, 2024 – He was unemployed and in receipt of EI.
g) April 17, 2024 to November 7, 2024 – He was employed at New Toronto Food Co. (New Toronto) as head of maintenance. He said he was paid at an annual rate of $80,000. He said the pay was lower because he was not the packaging manager, as he was at prior jobs. He said he was terminated without cause from this job on November 7, 2024.
h) November 7, 2024 – He is now unemployed. He said he will apply for EI and look for work.
[26] The father’s income tax returns show annual income as follows for the last three years:
2021 - $105,336 2022 - $114,748 2023 - $110, 290
[27] The father testified he has obtained a mechanical engineering licence in Nova Scotia. He has considered moving to Nova Scotia for employment opportunities.
[28] The father also said he obtained a licence in refrigeration in Ontario in July 2024.
[29] The father asks that child and spousal support be changed in accordance with his actual income, to be reviewed once he obtains employment. He said he will prepare weekly lists of jobs he applies for and provide the mother with any responses he receives from prospective employers.
3.2 The mother
[30] The mother has Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degrees from Nigeria. She was a doctor for two years in Nigeria. She is not qualified as a doctor in Canada.
[31] The mother obtained a diploma as a medical office assistant in Calgary and worked as a clinic support specialist in Calgary from August 2020 until April 2021, when she moved to Toronto to join the father.
[32] In June 2024, the mother passed the United States medical licensing exams. She said this is a quicker route to practice medicine in Canada. She has submitted her residency application and has an upcoming residency interview for a placement in Texas. Her plan is to pursue the medical residency in the United States and to eventually return to Canada.
[33] The mother said she is presently working part-time as a medical scribe for a doctor. She is also taking a graduate certificate program in Addictions and Mental Health at Algonquin College.
[34] The mother believes the father has left well-paying jobs to avoid his support obligations. She asks the court to find that he is deliberately under-employed or unemployed. She seeks the dismissal of his motion to change.
[35] The mother testified she has financially struggled to support herself and the children because the father is not paying the support ordered by the court. She said she is relying on credit cards to meet their needs.
[36] The mother asks that child support be increased in accordance with the higher income the father earned in 2023.
Part Four – What, if any, income should be imputed to the father?
4.1 The statutory tests to change the existing order
[37] Subsection 37 (2) of the Family Law Act (the Act) sets out the powers of the court to change spousal support. It reads as follows:
Powers of court: spouse and parent support
(2) In the case of an order for support of a spouse or parent, if the court is satisfied that there has been a material change in the dependant’s or respondent’s circumstances or that evidence not available on the previous hearing has become available, the court may,
(a) discharge, vary or suspend a term of the order, prospectively or retroactively;
(b) relieve the respondent from the payment of part or all of the arrears or any interest due on them; and
(c) make any other order under section 34 that the court considers appropriate in the circumstances referred to in section 33.
[38] Subsection 37 (2.1) of the Act sets out the powers of the court to change child support. It reads as follows:
Powers of court: child support
(2.1) In the case of an order for support of a child, if the court is satisfied that there has been a change in circumstances within the meaning of the child support guidelines or that evidence not available on the previous hearing has become available, the court may,
(a) discharge, vary or suspend a term of the order, prospectively or retroactively;
(b) relieve the respondent from the payment of part or all of the arrears or any interest due on them; and
(c) make any other order for the support of a child that the court could make on an application under section 33.
[39] If the court accepts the father’s evidence of being unemployed due to circumstances beyond his control, this will constitute both a material change in circumstances that warrants changing spousal support, and a change in circumstances that warrants changing child support. He will likely meet these threshold tests if the court even partially accepts his evidence about his ability to earn income.
[40] If the court rejects the father’s evidence and imputes to him the level of income attributed to him in the existing order (or a higher income), he will not meet the threshold tests to change either spousal or child support.
4.2 Legal considerations for imputing income
[41] Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines (the guidelines) permits the court to impute income to a party as it considers appropriate.
[42] The jurisprudence for imputation of income sets out the following:
a) Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet this obligation, the parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be found to be intentionally under-employed. See: Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 ONCA 41868, [2002] O.J. No. 3731(Ont. C.A.).
b) The Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala v. Pauli set out the following three questions which should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income:
i) Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed?
ii) If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child or reasonable health needs?
iii) If not, what income is appropriately imputed?
c) The onus is on the party seeking to impute income to the other party to establish that the other party is intentionally unemployed or under-employed. The person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which this finding can be made. See: Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, [2009] O.J. No. 1552. (Ont. C.A.).
d) Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position they are taking. Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663; Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719.
e) As a general rule, separated parents have an obligation to financially support their children and they cannot avoid that obligation by a self-induced reduction of income. See: Thompson v. Gilchrist, 2012 ONSC 4137; DePace v. Michienzi, [2000] O.J. No. 453, (Ont. Fam. Ct.).
f) The court must have regard to the payor’s capacity to earn income in light of such factors as employment history, age, education, skills, health, available employment opportunities and the standard of living enjoyed during the parties’ relationship. The court looks at the amount of income the party could earn if he or she worked to capacity. See: Lawson v. Lawson, 2006 ONCA 26573.
g) The court can also impute income where the evidence respecting income is not credible for any other reason. See: Heard v. Heard, 2014 ONCA 196 (C.A.), at paras. 33-35; Gostevskikh v. Gostevskikh, 2018 BCSC 1441 (S.C.).
[43] In Daciuk v. Daciuk, 2023 ONSC 70, Justice Marvin Kurz reviewed the jurisprudence regarding imputing income to a person who is unemployed due to their own choice or misconduct at paragraphs 58 to 64 as follows:
[58] If a support payor leaves their employment in a manner that neglects their support obligations, they can be found to be intentionally underemployed. For example. in Marucci v. Marucci 2001 CarswellOnt 4349 (S.C.J.), Haines J. cited s. 19(1)(a) in refusing to lower a payor’s support obligations. The payor quit his low-paying job to return to school, despite a support obligation under a court order. Haines J. found that the payor:
made no inquiry into the prospects of employment when the programme was completed, made little inquiry into the nature and difficulty of the programme, and persisted when it was apparent early on that successful completion of the course was dubious. It seems to me that Mr. Marucci has taken to the lifestyle of the student and forgotten his obligations as a parent.
[59] A number of decisions demonstrate that misconduct leading to employment termination can be seen as intentional under or unemployment. In Luckey v. Luckey, [1996] O.J. No. 1960 (S.C.J.), Czutrin J. was unwilling to reduce a support order when the payor had been terminated for assaulting a fellow employee. This case made no reference to s. 19(1)(a) because it preceded the implementation of the Child Support Guidelines.
[60] In Sherwood v. Sherwood, [2006] O.J. No. 4860 (S.C.J.), Coats J. imputed income to a payor after his deliberate conduct led to the termination of his employment. After obtaining a new job, the payor chose to take a lengthy, indefinite leave of absence. Among Coats J.’s findings were:
a. The unemployment was the result of a deliberate choice or series of choices;
b. The consequences of the payor’s choice should be born by him, not his dependants
c. If he was claiming a medical inability to work, the onus lay on him to prove it.
[61] In Malcolm v. McGee, 2017 ONCJ 357, a payor was fired from their job due to his misconduct. He was a sanitation truck driver who was required to maintain his truck driver’s licence. In order to renew that licence, he was required to pass an eye test. But he failed it, meaning that he had to obtain a new prescription and glasses to retake the test. At this point, he began to make what Sherr J. described as “very poor decisions”. He failed to get new glasses or take a new eye test, citing the cost. He then compounded his error by failing to inform his employer that he had lost his licence. Rather, he kept on driving, unlicensed. This decision placed his employer at some financial risk. When the employer learned from a third-party of the payor’s unlicensed status, it fired him for cause. Sherr J. found that the payor’s income had been reduced because of his own “misconduct”: paras. 45, 49(c) and 50 (a).
[62] Courts have a significant degree of discretion when imputing income. See: Menegaldo v. Menegaldo, 2012 ONSC 2915; Tillmans v. Tillmans, 2014 ONSC 6773; Gordon v. Wilkins, 2020 ONCJ 115. That includes whether to impute income to a payor who loses a job because of their own conduct, and the amount to impute to them: Gordon v. Wilkins, at para. 44, Malcolm v. McGee, at para. 48.
[63] In Gordon v. Wilkins, at para. 47, Sherr J. wrote of the broad discretion to determine the appropriate income to impute to a payor who is earning less than they could because of their reckless behaviour or misconduct. He stated:
The court is also not bound to impute income at the payor's previous income level if it decides to impute income due to the payor's reckless behaviour or misconduct. It can impute income in an amount different than what the payor had been earning, or it can impute different amounts of income for different time periods. Courts have a significant degree of discretion when imputing income. See: Menegaldo v. Menegaldo, 2012 ONSC 2915; Tillmans v. Tillmans, 2014 ONSC 6773.
[64] In Malcolm v. McGee, Sherr J. wrote at paragraphs 47 and 48:
[47] The court must determine how to allocate the consequences of the father's poor decisions. The mother argues that the father should bear the entire cost of these decisions -- the child should not receive any less support.
[48] The court agrees with the mother to some extent. However, at a certain point, an existing order can become unrealistic and unjust due to a payor's changed circumstances -- no matter if those changed circumstances were caused by the payor's misconduct. The court should conduct a contextual examination of all the circumstances in determining the support amounts it should order.
[44] In Daciuk, Justice Kurz found that the payor was fired because of his frequent failure to attend work and his refusal to meaningfully engage with his employer regarding those absences. He found that the payor was intentionally unemployed. Justice Kurz imputed the income the payor had been earning before he started missing days and weeks of work at a time, before ultimately being fired.
[45] Courts have found it appropriate to impute income at the level a person was earning before they unreasonably quit a job. See: Thompson v. Gilchrist, 2012 ONSC 4137; Lindsay v. Jeffrey, 2014 ONCJ 1; McAlister v. Dunkley, 2022 ONCJ 71.
4.3 Assessment of the father’s evidence
[46] The father was not a credible witness. The court rejects his evidence that he was unemployed, or earning less income than the amount attributed to him in the existing order, due to circumstances beyond his control. The court finds that he has been intentionally under-employed and is now intentionally unemployed.
[47] There is now a well-established pattern of the father leaving jobs when the mother is seeking support from him.
[48] On September 2, 2022, the mother served a notice of motion in the original application for temporary spousal support, to be heard on October 5, 2022. The father quit his job at Bierworks on September 28, 2022. The motion was adjourned. He obtained the job at Ozery Bakery prior to the return date for the motion. This job paid him $20,000 a year less than at Bierworks. His temporary and final support obligations were based on this lower income. The father claims the timing of his quitting his job had nothing to do with the support motion. It was just a coincidence. This was the first coincidence.
[49] In November 2022, three months after the existing order was made, the father left his lower-paying job at Ozery Bakery and started a new job at Treasure Mills paying him $20,000 more annually. Was the proximity of the new job to the completion of the court case a coincidence? If so, it was the second coincidence.
[50] The father deposed that he received an enforcement letter from the Director prior to starting his motion to change (the court was not provided with the date of this letter). Was the proximity of the job loss at Treasure Mills to the enforcement letter and the commencement of this motion to change a coincidence? If so, this was the third coincidence.
[51] Subsection 37 (3) of the Act states that no application for variation shall be made within six months after the making of the order for support except by leave of the court. Was the proximity to this six-month restriction of the father losing his job at Treasure Mills and starting his motion to change a coincidence? If so, this was the fourth coincidence.
[52] The father claims he lost his job at New Toronto on November 7, 2024 without cause. This was less than two weeks before this trial. Was the proximity of the job loss to the trial a coincidence? If so, this was the fifth coincidence.
[53] The court finds it is highly unlikely that five purported coincidences, are, in fact, coincidences. They are far more likely intentional acts by the father designed to avoid his support obligations.
[54] The court had many other concerns with the father’s credibility.
[55] The father’s evidence about why he left his job at Bierworks in September 2022 was inconsistent. At trial, the father provided four reasons why he quit this job. They were:
His employer removed him as the head of maintenance, leaving him only as head of packaging.
His employer hired someone else to take over the head of maintenance job and sent a memo to employees to report to this new person.
His employer started a new production line and he was excluded from the training. He felt that “he was on the way out”.
He felt he was close to getting a job at another company.
[56] This narrative significantly differed from his affidavit sworn November 3, 2022 for the temporary support motion in the originating action. In that affidavit he gave the following reasons for quitting this job:
The work was overwhelming and taking a significant toll on his health. The father did not mention this reason at trial.
He was given a poor performance view. He was shocked by it. The father did not mention this reason at trial.
He had an injury at work and when he returned to work, he was unwell. The father did not mention this at trial.
He quit before they could fire him. The father alluded to this as a factor at trial.
[57] The father’s evidence about his desire to meet his support obligations was not credible. At trial, he claimed that he was doing his best to meet his obligations until he lost his employment at Treasure Mills. This was not the case. The father had a very poor payment history, particularly given the sizeable income he was earning.
[58] The father did not increase his child support payments in accordance with his increased income when he started earning annual income of $125,000 at Treasure Mills in October 2023. He was not even paying support in accordance with the existing order. When he lost his job at Treasure Mills, he was already $10,863 in support arrears.
[59] The father’s evidence about his financial challenges was not credible. He claimed he had increasing debts due to his support obligations. This is not the case. In an effective cross-examination, the mother’s counsel took the father through his financial statements starting with the original application in 2022. Aside from his child support arrears, there has been little change in the father’s debts. He is finding some way to meet his expenses.
[60] The father’s evidence about why he lost his job at Treasure Mills was not credible. He claimed at trial that he was dismissed from that job without cause. His record of employment says otherwise. It uses a code M00, which means he was dismissed or suspended. The father did not explain why this code was used. Given his lack of credibility, the court is not prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and find that he was dismissed without cause. The father did not provide a satisfactory explanation for why he was dismissed from this job.
[61] The father also provided no corroboration for why he was terminated from New Toronto on November 7, 2024, such as a record of employment or a termination letter from his employer. This leaves the court to question whether he quit this job or was dismissed again for cause.
[62] The father also did not provide a record of employment from Ozery Bakery.
[63] The father did not provide meaningful evidence of job searches. He provided a list of businesses he claimed he has applied to. He did not provide copies of any applications or responses from these prospective employers. He just wrote names on a piece of paper and the dates he claimed he made his applications. The father provided texts he had with a job recruiter about finding employment. However, these texts predated the existing order. The court questions why there has been no similar communication with a job recruiter since February 2024.
[64] The father obtained his engineering license in Nova Scotia. He did not explain why he has not taken steps to obtain his engineering license in Ontario.
[65] The father testified he is having difficulty finding work because he does not have a millwright license, an electrician license, or a gas license. He did not state in his trial affidavit or in his motion to change that these were impediments to finding work. He provided no documentary evidence to support his claim that not having these licenses is making it harder for him to find employment. The court does not accept this evidence.
[66] The court makes the following findings:
a) The father has been deliberately under-employed and is now deliberately unemployed.
b) The father’s loss of income, starting with when he quit his job at Bierworks in 2022 and continuing with his dismissal from Treasure Mills on February 20, 2024, has been due to his own conduct. The court does not accept his evidence that he is the innocent victim of an unfortunate sequence of circumstances with his employers that are beyond his control.
c) The father is making insufficient efforts to find work that would pay him the income he is capable of earning.
d) The father has consistently found well-paying jobs since he came to Ontario. He has many skills and is very employable.
e) The father has been and currently is capable of earning employment income, at least at the level imputed to him in the existing order.
Part Five – The mother and the decision regarding spousal support
[67] The father testified he was not challenging the mother’s continued entitlement to spousal support. He did not raise this as an issue in his motion to change or in his trial affidavit.
[68] However, the father attacked the mother at trial for not supporting him and the children. He questioned whether she is doing enough to become self-sufficient. He portrayed himself as the victim in this case.
[69] This was profoundly unfair. The mother has struggled to meet the needs of herself and the children because the father has failed to meet his support responsibilities. However, since the father raised the issue, the court will quickly dispose of it.
[70] The mother has a very strong claim for compensatory spousal support for the following reasons:
a) She has been and will continue to be the children’s primary caregiver. She is the parent who meets all the children’s needs. She has to arrange her schedule around the children’s needs. This has compromised and will continue to compromise her ability to earn income.
b) She was qualified as a medical doctor in Nigeria. She had to start over in Canada.
c) She left Calgary in 2021, where she had employment, to follow the father to Ontario. She did this to support his career.
d) The parties had agreed the mother would follow the pathway she is following to eventually qualify as a doctor in Canada.
[71] The mother is doing her best to become self-sufficient. She has passed her United States medical licensing exams. She is interviewing for a residency. She is working part-time, raising the children full-time and going to school to upgrade her skills while she goes through the process of obtaining a residency. It was incredulous that the father felt this was insufficient.
[72] The only reason the current spousal support payment is so low is because the father’s child support payments take priority. The father has still not come close to satisfying his compensatory support obligation to the mother.
[73] The court finds that the father has not established a material change in circumstances to change the spousal support order.
Part Six – The decision regarding child support
[74] The court will impute income to the father at the level attributed to him in the existing order, from the date of that order, due to his intentional under-employment and unemployment.
[75] The court declines to impute the slightly higher income to the father sought by the mother. He is not actually earning that level of income now. The father has dug himself a financial hole and this decision already sends a clear and necessary message to him that the court will not condone his avoidance of his support obligations.
[76] The court finds there is no change in circumstances warranting changing the child support order. The motions to change are dismissed.
Part Seven – Request that father require leave prior to starting any other proceeding in this court
[77] The mother seeks an order requiring the father to seek leave prior to starting any proceeding in this court.
[78] The Ontario Court of Justice has jurisdiction to impose a term order requiring leave to bring a motion to change under the Family Law Act. The jurisdiction is under subrules, 14 (21), 15 (27) 1 (6) and 2 and by importing 37.16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 through subrule 1 (7). See: Tiveron v. Collins, 2017 ONCA 598; Guma v. Nedelcu, 2019 ONSC 3429; Watson v. Watson, 2023 ONCJ 435.
[79] Subrule 14 (21) provides the court with authority to require a party to first obtain permission before making any other motions in the case. It reads as follows:
No motions without court’s permission
14(21) If a party tries to delay the case or add to its costs or in any other way to abuse the court’s process by making numerous motions without merit, the court may order the party not to make any other motions in the case without the court’s permission.
[80] Courts should exercise this authority cautiously, particularly when dealing with parenting issues. See: Rodriguez v. Vella, 2022 ONCA 870.
[81] This court has written that leave orders should not be made just because a party was unsuccessful on one motion to change. Something more is required. See: Sajid v. Mahmood, 2023 ONCJ 120; Ambia v. Degenstein, 2023 ONCJ 445.
[82] In W.H.C. v. W.C.M.C., 2024 ONCJ 327, this court required leave to bring any future proceedings where the father had unpaid costs orders and had acted unreasonably in both the original application and on the motion to change.
[83] The court will not grant the mother’s request in this case for the following reasons:
a) It would place a barrier on the father addressing parenting issues.
b) This was the first motion to change. Although the father was unsuccessful, he did not act unreasonably.
c) The father consented to a focused hearing and addressed this matter expeditiously.
d) The father did not abuse the court process.
e) There are no unpaid costs orders.
Part Eight – Conclusion
[84] An order shall go as follows:
a) The motions to change the existing order are dismissed.
b) The mother’s request to require the father to seek leave prior to bringing any further proceedings in this court is dismissed.
c) The father shall immediately notify the mother when he obtains employment. He shall provide her with the name and address of the employer, together with a copy of any employment contract and his first three pay stubs.
[85] The mother is entitled to her costs of this application. She may serve and file written costs submissions by December 2, 2024. The father will then have until December 16, 2024 to make a written response.
[86] The costs submissions should not exceed three pages, not including any offer to settle or bill of costs. The submissions should be delivered to the trial coordinator’s office on the second floor of the courthouse or emailed to the trial coordinator.
Released: November 19, 2024
Justice Stanley B. Sherr