The respondent father brought a motion to vary an interim child support order, arguing his income had decreased after he accepted a promotion to a managerial position that did not offer overtime pay.
The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing the father was intentionally under-employed to avoid paying child support.
The court found that the father's new position was a legitimate career advancement that increased his base salary, and he was not intentionally under-employed.
The court granted the motion to vary child support based on the father's reduced income, resulting in a set-off amount payable by the mother.
