Ron Paritzky

The applicant sought an order clarifying and quantifying child support obligations under a prior consent order so that the Family Responsibility Office could enforce the support provisions.

The respondent argued that changes in his employment and income after moving provinces justified recalculating support based on fluctuating earnings.

The court held that the issue before it was not a variation application and that the consent order’s adjustment mechanisms must be enforced as written.

The court issued an order implementing several provisions of the applicant’s draft order to clarify the calculation of periodic child support and section 7 expenses.

However, the court declined to make prospective orders regarding future section 7 expenses such as orthodontia, summer camp, and piano lessons due to the speculative nature of those costs.

The parties brought cross-motions to change support obligations set out in their 2003 Separation Agreement.

The respondent sought to terminate spousal support after losing his job, while the applicant sought retroactive child support and increased spousal support.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's unemployment and the applicant's new employment.

The court terminated spousal support immediately and dismissed the applicant's claims for retroactive child and spousal support.

Following a motion concerning prospective and retroactive spousal support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant had been awarded interim spousal support of $7,000 per month retroactive to April 1, 2012.

The respondent argued that a prior offer to settle was more favourable than the motion outcome and should affect costs under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the offer was not more favourable because it involved a lower monthly support amount and delayed payment of arrears.

Costs of $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis were therefore awarded to the applicant under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.