Reide L. Kaiser

Two motions to change a child support order dated January 29, 2014 were before the court.

The father sought to reduce support from two children to one child and sought repayment of alleged overpayments.

The mother sought a retroactive increase in support based on the father's increased income since 2014.

The court found that the father's income included both employment income and rental income from adult children living in his home.

The court determined that a retroactive adjustment to January 1, 2014 was appropriate based on the father's blameworthy conduct in failing to disclose his income as required by the original order.

The court attributed 50% of the gross rental income to the father and allowed a 20% deduction for expenses.

The father was found to owe arrears of $1,708 as of November 30, 2019, and was ordered to pay $366 per month going forward for one child.

The applicant (mother) sought costs against the respondent (father) arising from a focused trial concerning child support for two young children.

The mother sought to impute income to the father based on his previous full-time employment and requested that he pay his proportionate share of the children's section 7 expenses.

The father sought to pay child support based on ODSP and minimal employment income.

The mother was completely successful at trial.

The court found that the father had quit a well-paying unionized job without securing alternative employment and had made minimal efforts to find work since leaving.

The mother served a reasonable offer to settle two weeks before trial, which the father rejected.

The court awarded costs to the mother, finding that the father acted unreasonably in failing to accept the offer and that the mother was entitled to costs under the Family Law Rules.

A trial concerning child support for two children (ages 6 and 4) following the separation of the parents.

The mother sought child support based on an imputed income of $47,129 (the respondent's average income for three years of full-time employment) and contributions to special and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent sought to pay based on his current income from Ontario Disability Support Payment (ODSP) and limited employment income.

The court found the respondent intentionally under-employed and imputed income at $47,129, ordering monthly child support and a 70% contribution to section 7 expenses.

The applicant mother sought child support and spousal support from the respondent father for their 19-year-old child.

The father, residing in the United Arab Emirates, was noted in default.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to order spousal support as the parties had been divorced in 2010.

The court imputed the father's annual income at $155,000 based on available evidence and his career progression.

The court ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2012, finding the father's conduct in ceasing payments after November 2010 despite multiple requests was egregiously blameworthy.

The court calculated total arrears at $86,880 and ordered ongoing monthly support of $1,335, plus the father's proportionate share of post-secondary expenses and costs of $3,000.

This is a summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto in a status review application concerning a child born in 2015 who was removed from parental care due to prenatal drug exposure and other protection concerns.

The society sought an order placing the child in the care and custody of the maternal grandmother pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents sought to have the child returned to their joint care subject to supervision.

The court found that the parents had not made sufficient progress in addressing the original concerns—including substance abuse, domestic conflict, dishonesty, and failure to maintain consistent access—and that placement with the maternal grandmother remained in the child's best interests.

The summary judgment motion was granted.

The parents appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their appeal of a Crown wardship decision for delay.

The parents argued the motion judge failed to consider the merits of their appeal and breached their right to a fair hearing by denying an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found that while the motion judge should have explicitly addressed the merits, a review of the record showed the parents' appeal raised only factual disputes with no palpable and overriding error.

Given the lack of merit and the child's need for stability, the appeal was dismissed.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to set aside a default order for child support or, in the alternative, to reduce his child support obligations.

The applicant sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $5,800, while the respondent argued for no costs or reduced costs on the basis that the applicant was legally aided and that a costs award would diminish his ability to pay child support.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a close to full recovery basis, finding that the respondent did not act reasonably in his conduct of the motion and that the applicant was the successful party.

The appellant mother appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing her appeal from a trial judgment that made her child a Crown ward without access.

She argued the Children's Aid Society breached its statutory duty to provide services and that the trial judge erred by not extending the period of CAS wardship.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the CAS made numerous attempts to assist the mother, which were frustrated by her own conduct, and that an extension of wardship was not justified given the child's best interests.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside or change a default final order of January 29, 2015, which granted custody to the mother and ordered child support of $546.00 per month based on an attributed income of $60,000.

The father claimed he was unaware of the proceedings due to concealing his whereabouts following an alleged threat, and argued his actual income was substantially lower.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father had adequate notice through service at his mother's address, no fraud was committed by the mother, and the father lacked credibility regarding his financial disclosure and whereabouts.

The applicant father sought to confirm a provisional variation order from British Columbia that drastically reduced his child and spousal support obligations and arrears.

The respondent mother and the City of Toronto opposed the confirmation, providing evidence that the applicant had misrepresented his income, employment capabilities, and notice of the original Ontario proceedings to the British Columbia court.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused to confirm the provisional order, finding the applicant had not been honest, and ordered the original support order to continue in effect with costs awarded to the respondent and the City.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access.

The mother opposed the motion, proposing a plan to care for the child with a new partner.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, relying on recent findings from a previous proceeding involving the mother's older child, which established her lack of parenting capacity and poor judgment.

The court concluded the mother's proposed plan was unrealistic and that the child was in need of protection.

Crown wardship without access was ordered to facilitate adoption.

Following a five‑year marriage with no children of the relationship, the parties sought divorce, mutual restraining orders, and spousal support.

The respondent alleged abuse and sought spousal support based on need and alleged underemployment by the applicant.

The court found the marriage was short, the respondent had become self‑sufficient since separation, and any economic disadvantage arising from the marriage was minimal.

A restraining order was granted against the applicant due to evidence of ongoing contact and harassment, but the respondent was denied spousal support.

Divorce was granted to both parties.