Pamela Stacy Jacobson

This decision addresses a father's amended motion to change child support terms, including termination of support upon children reaching 18 years and retroactive adjustment of support based on actual income.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's job loss and income decrease, but also identified blameworthy conduct for failure to disclose income and pay support voluntarily.

The court imputed income for support purposes, adjusted arrears accordingly, and set a payment plan for arrears owed to the assignee.

The mother was found in default and did not participate.

This case involved cross-motions to change child support.

The father sought a retroactive reduction in child support and termination of support for an adult child, claiming no income for several years.

The mother sought a retroactive increase in child support based on the father's actual income.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding his conduct blameworthy due to his failure to disclose income and pay support.

The court granted the mother's request for a retroactive increase in child support from January 1, 2022, and set ongoing support based on the father's current income, also confirming the adult child's continued eligibility for support.

The decision emphasized the application of the Colucci and Michel frameworks for retroactive support, highlighting the importance of disclosure and the impact of blameworthy conduct.

The mother brought a motion seeking an order for child support for the parties' one-year-old son.

The father opposed immediate payment, arguing he was incapable of gainful employment due to mental health impairments and that his child support obligation should be deferred until completion of his education plans.

The court found the father's health needs reasonably precluded him from current employment but rejected his proposed deferral of support for 8-10 years as unreasonable.

The court deferred the father's obligation for one year with the expectation he would pursue vocational rehabilitation, then imputed income based on half-time minimum wage employment for year two, and full-time minimum wage employment thereafter.

The mother sought an order permitting her to obtain a passport and government documents for the parties' 10-year-old child and to travel outside Canada for vacation purposes without the father's consent.

The father opposed the motion, arguing the mother was a flight risk and sought to sever his relationship with the child, particularly regarding travel to non-Hague Convention countries.

The court found the mother was not a flight risk, was strongly connected to Canada, and had no intention of removing the child to sever the father-child relationship.

The court granted the mother's request with notice requirements to the father.

This was a costs endorsement following a family law trial in which success was divided.

The court held that neither side should recover costs, citing the mixed outcome on support issues, the applicant's failure to beat an offer to settle, the dismissal of the constructive trust claim, and litigation conduct by both parties.

The court also noted that the respondent made no offer on spousal support and that the applicant had previously been required to bring a motion for a certificate of pending litigation.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The applicant sought child support, spousal support, and a declaration of unjust enrichment regarding a property purchased by the respondent.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes, finding he unreasonably deducted business expenses from his employment income.

The court awarded the applicant spousal support of $200 per month for 24 months due to her financial dependence and child care obligations.

However, the court dismissed the applicant's unjust enrichment claim, finding no intention between the parties to co-own the property and concluding the funds advanced were for living expenses and debt repayment.