Pauline Malcolm

This trial determined the applicant's child support obligations for the parties' seven-year-old son.

The respondent sought retroactive child support from January 1, 2021, and requested that income be imputed to the applicant.

The applicant's amended application was struck due to non-compliance with financial disclosure orders.

The court found the presumptive start date for retroactive support to be May 1, 2021, and declined to depart from this date despite the applicant's hardship.

The court imputed income to the applicant based on his Sports Canada athletic grants and his capacity to earn as a personal fitness trainer.

The applicant was ordered to pay retroactive arrears of $12,431.26 at $150 per month, plus ongoing child support of $284 per month starting October 1, 2025.

The applicant mother sought temporary orders for sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, child support, and insurance-related relief for the parties’ son.

The respondent father sought sole decision-making responsibility.

The court maintained the current parenting schedule, declined to grant sole decision-making responsibility on a temporary basis, ordered child support based on the father’s most recent income, and required the father to maintain the child as a beneficiary under his health and life insurance plans.

The court also addressed costs, communication protocols, and pension disclosure.

A trial concerning custody, access, and mobility of a two-year-old child.

The father sought sole custody and for the child to reside in Toronto, while the mother sought sole custody and permission to reside in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The court found the father had serious parenting deficiencies, including inadequate care of the child's medical needs, exposure to drug dealing, harsh parenting of the mother's other children, and emotionally abusive behaviour toward the mother.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and permitted the child to reside in Sault Ste.

Marie, finding the mother had valid and compelling reasons for the move and that the child was thriving in the new environment.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule for the father, beginning with day visits and progressing to overnight visits contingent on consistent exercise of access.

This is a costs decision following a temporary motion heard on April 9, 2015, with the decision released on May 11, 2015.

The respondent sought expanded access to two children, including overnight access and ancillary parenting orders.

The applicant opposed the transfer and sought to change the child's counsellor.

The court granted the respondent alternate weekend access and Wednesday access, denied the applicant's request to change counsellors, and made ancillary orders regarding extra-curricular activities and telephone access.

The respondent was successful on the motion and had served an offer to settle that was not accepted.

The court awarded full costs to the respondent.

The respondent (father) brought a motion to change a 2005 child support order, seeking to terminate his child support obligation based on claims that he had the children in his care for 50% of the time from June 2007 to June 2012, and 70% thereafter.

The applicant (mother) disputed these claims.

The court determined that the preliminary issue was whether the father had met the onus of proving that the children were in his care for at least 40% of the time, which is the threshold under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court found that the father failed to meet this burden and dismissed the motion to change.

The respondent father brought a motion for a summary decision on whether settlement funds of $175,000 USD received for copyright infringement of his musical composition constituted "income" for child support purposes under the Child Support Guidelines.

The applicant mother cross-moved, arguing the funds were income or, alternatively, that income should be imputed.

The court held that the settlement funds constitute "income" for child support purposes, even if not taxable for income tax purposes, as they represent compensation for lost royalties and profits from the copyright.

The court allowed reasonable deductions for expenses directly incurred in recovering the damages and addressed tax grossing-up and currency conversion issues.