Pawel Wojtis

The moving party sought to vary a prior consent order requiring payment of child support for three children based on an income of $47,255, arguing his income had substantially decreased in subsequent years and requesting retroactive reduction and rescission of arrears.

The responding party opposed the motion, alleging the moving party continued to earn unreported cash income and had voluntarily quit employment.

The court found insufficient evidence to establish hidden income but concluded the moving party had voluntarily left secure employment for minor reasons and was therefore intentionally underemployed within the meaning of the Child Support Guidelines.

Applying the principles in Drygala v Pauli, the court held there was no basis to vary the original support order.

The motion to vary was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2009 consent order to terminate child support and post-secondary education expenses for his adult daughter, arguing that she had completely alienated him.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to increase the father's proportionate share of the expenses based on his increased income.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no material change in circumstances because the estrangement existed when the consent order was made, and income variations were foreseeable.

However, the court ordered that the adult daughter must contribute 75% of her income towards her own post-secondary expenses, and suspended the father's base child support obligations during the months the daughter attends university away from home.