Paul Luizos

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support order dated February 17, 2004, seeking an adjustment retroactive to February 17, 2005.

The respondent father sought to eliminate special expenses under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines and claimed undue hardship under section 10.

The court adjusted child support retroactively to July 1, 2008 (three years prior to the motion), applying the D.B.S. factors.

The father's undue hardship claim was dismissed as he failed to meet the threshold test.

The court found that tutoring expenses qualified as extraordinary special expenses and ordered the father to contribute his pro-rata share.

The court calculated arrears of $20,612 and ordered repayment at $425 per month commencing January 1, 2013.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover monies advanced to the defendant under a demand promissory note and related financial transactions.

The defendants raised a limitations defence under the Limitations Act, 2002, arguing that the claim was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period.

The court held that the issuance of a $500,000 cheque drawn on the corporate defendant’s account constituted a payment on account and acknowledgment of the debt, restarting the limitation period under s. 13 of the Act.

The defendant’s admissions during cross‑examination further confirmed acknowledgment of liability.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

The moving party sought an interim order for the recovery of commercial dishwashing equipment allegedly rented to a former tenant and located on premises owned by the responding parties, as well as an order transferring the action to the Small Claims Court.

Conflicting affidavit evidence raised issues regarding ownership of the equipment, alleged forgery of a landlord’s waiver, and whether the responding parties had sold the equipment to a subsequent tenant.

The court found that the evidentiary record disclosed serious factual disputes, including possible fraud, priority claims, and damages for lost rental income, none of which had been tested through cross-examination.

Given these unresolved issues, the court held that the matter required determination at trial.

The request for interim recovery and transfer to Small Claims Court was dismissed, and the action was permitted to continue under the simplified procedure.