Ronald G. McClelland

The father brought an interim motion for child and spousal support.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to impute income to the father, arguing he was intentionally underemployed as a real estate agent.

The court declined to impute income, finding the father's reduction in income was reasonable given his diagnosis of an anxiety disorder and his efforts to supplement his income.

The court also declined to include the father's past RRSP withdrawals in his income, as the funds were depleted.

The court ordered the mother to pay net child support and interim spousal support based on the parties' actual incomes, and directed her to reinstate the father on her employment health benefit plan.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant restaurant for unpaid HST amounts totaling $83,261.60 relating to emergency repair and restoration services following a fire.

The defendant opposed the motion, claiming equitable set-off for $81,711.10 in expenses it incurred to complete work abandoned by the plaintiff's subcontractor.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the defendant's entitlement to equitable set-off, as the claims were closely connected and it would be unjust to grant judgment without determining the counterclaim.

Following a motion to change child support based on an alleged material change in circumstances, the court determined costs after releasing the underlying judgment.

The respondent father had sought termination or suspension of child support and relief from arrears, while the applicant mother sought imputation of income, enforcement mechanisms, and security for child support.

The court found that both parties achieved some success but that the overall result favoured the applicant mother because the father obtained only limited relief and the court granted security for child support through a lien on his property.

The court also considered the parties’ conduct, the absence of meaningful settlement offers, and the importance of enforcing a child’s right to support.

Balancing the Family Law Rules factors and the parties’ financial circumstances, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant.

A support payor brought a motion to change seeking termination or suspension of child support following a motor vehicle accident that aggravated a shoulder injury and allegedly prevented employment.

The court found the accident constituted a material change in circumstances under s. 17 of the Divorce Act but concluded the payor remained intentionally under‑employed for much of the period after the accident.

The court granted a six‑month grace period suspending child support but maintained the previously imputed income and reinstated ongoing support thereafter.

Arrears were fixed and security was granted through a lien registered against the payor’s real property.

Requests to vest the property in the recipient and to restrict future motions were denied as disproportionate or unsupported.