Robert John Charko

The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton brought a motion for summary judgment within a Status Review Application concerning the child S.M.A.A. The Society sought an order finding the child in need of protection, placing the child in the custody of the father, and granting the mother supervised access.

The mother did not file responding materials or attend the hearing.

The father consented to the relief sought.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and the proposed placement.

The child was placed in the father's custody, and the mother was granted supervised access by a mutually agreeable third party, with location, frequency, and duration at the father's discretion.

The applicant father sought to have child support arrears dismissed, while the respondent mother sought arrears of $23,012.00 plus costs.

The parties had entered into a separation agreement in 2009 providing for child support of $1,500.00 per month.

Subsequent material changes in the children's living arrangements occurred, including the father's relocation to British Columbia and changes in custody arrangements.

The court found that arrears were owing based on changed circumstances and applied the Child Support Guidelines retroactively.

However, exercising discretion under the Family Law Act, the court reduced the arrears from approximately $20,000.00 to $10,000.00, considering the father's financial capacity, the children's circumstances, and additional expenses paid by the father.

The applicant sought enforcement of a separation agreement requiring the deceased former spouse to maintain life insurance naming the applicant as irrevocable beneficiary to secure ongoing child support obligations.

After changing employment, the deceased obtained new life insurance but named his new spouse as beneficiary, contrary to the agreement.

Following the deceased’s death, the insurance proceeds were paid to the new spouse while the estate lacked sufficient assets to satisfy the obligation.

The court held that the life insurance proceeds were intended as security for the deceased’s child support obligations and that equity justified the imposition of a constructive trust over the proceeds received by the respondent.

The respondent was ordered to pay funds into court to secure ongoing support payments for the dependent child.