Ray DiGregorio

The moving party (father) brought a motion to change a 2004 child support order, seeking to retroactively terminate child support and reduce his accumulated arrears of over $22,000.

The father argued his income had significantly decreased due to health issues since 2004 and he was now solely reliant on a CPP disability pension.

The responding party (mother) opposed the reduction, citing the father's history of evading support and failing to provide financial disclosure.

The court found a material change in circumstances only from 2015 onwards, imputing income for the prior years due to severe disclosure deficiencies.

The court dismissed the request to retroactively reduce support and rescind arrears, citing the father's blameworthy conduct, delay, and failure to disclose.

However, given the father's current limited income, the court ordered a payment plan of $65 per month towards the arrears.

Following a judgment in favour of the applicant in a commercial lease dispute involving approximately $19,000, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought $14,424.02 in partial indemnity costs based on 39.8 hours of legal work.

Although the court accepted the time spent and hourly rate as reasonable, it considered the proportionality of costs relative to the modest amount in dispute under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Taking into account the applicant’s settlement efforts and the absence of settlement offers or cost submissions from the respondents, the court exercised discretion to reduce the amount claimed and fixed costs at $12,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

A commercial tenant sought a determination that it was not liable under a net‑net lease for its proportionate share of the cost of completely repaving a parking lot and for the cost of replacing a damaged vehicle door.

The landlord argued the tenant was responsible for common area maintenance and repair expenses.

The court held that full replacement of a 19–20‑year‑old parking lot constituted a capital replacement caused by reasonable wear and tear, not “maintenance” or “repair” contemplated by the lease.

The court also preferred the tenant’s evidence that the door damage pre‑dated the tenancy.

The tenant was therefore not liable for the repaving cost, the door replacement cost, or bailiff fees relating to a dispute about last month’s rent.