Reide L. Kaiser

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.

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 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.