Russell Molot

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.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim primary residence of the parties' 12-year-old child, which was adjourned pending a Voice of the Child Report.

The court addressed several interim issues, ordering the child to change counsellors after the father unilaterally engaged a counsellor without the mother's consent.

The court also ordered the father to pay interim child support on a set-off basis and interim spousal support at the high range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Further orders were made regarding the equal sharing of matrimonial home expenses, the distribution of home sale proceeds, and corporate disclosure.

Following a successful motion by the applicant father to return the child to a specific school catchment area, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full or substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour in unilaterally changing the child's school.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably but not in bad faith.

Considering the respondent's limited ability to pay and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the applicant $8,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion after the respondent mother unilaterally moved with their child to Plantagenet and changed the child's school without his consent.

The mother argued the move was within the 25-kilometer geographical restriction in their joint custody order and thus not a material change in circumstances.

The court rejected the mother's argument, finding that the move and school change constituted a major decision requiring joint consent under the order.

The court ordered the child to be returned to the original school's catchment area and registered there for the upcoming school year.