3 total
The court imputed income to both parties for support purposes, drawing adverse inferences against the respondent for failing to provide financial disclosure.
A trial concerning child and spousal support following the separation of a long-term marriage.
The primary issues involved imputing income to both parties.
The respondent husband was employed by Canada Post until his discharge in 2020, after which he operated a courier business and subsequently worked for Ford Canada before ceasing employment.
The applicant wife had been out of the workforce for approximately 20 years at separation and subsequently received Ontario Works and ODSP benefits.
The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes and determined that the applicant was entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.
Child made a Crown ward without access due to mother's inability to support specialized treatment needs.
The children's aid society sought an order for Crown wardship without access for a 12-year-old child with significant behavioural and sexualized issues.
The mother sought the child's return to her care or, alternatively, unsupervised access.
The court found that the mother lacked insight into the child's needs, was unable to manage his behaviours, and consistently undermined his therapeutic placements due to her combative relationship with the society.
Concluding that the child required stability and specialized treatment that the mother could not support, the court ordered Crown wardship.
Access was denied as it was found to be destabilizing for the child and would impair future opportunities for adoption.
Motion to quash tenants' appeal of eviction order granted as it raised no questions of law.
The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenants' appeal of an eviction order on the basis that it was manifestly devoid of merit.
The Landlord and Tenant Board had ordered eviction after finding the tenants committed an illegal act involving obstructing and assaulting a peace officer, and declined to grant relief from eviction under s. 83 of the Act due to the tenants' lack of candour.
The Divisional Court found the appeal raised no questions of law and was merely an attempt to overturn findings of fact and credibility.
The motion to quash was granted and the certificate of stay was vacated.
