Sanaz Golestani

The applicant father brought a motion to change a temporary parenting order to obtain shared custody on a 2-2-5-5 basis.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure of the father's psychiatric records, disability benefit applications, and a Voice of the Child report.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no material change in circumstances that would compel a change to the interim parenting arrangement.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, ordering the disclosure of the father's medical and financial records, finding that the need to determine the children's best interests outweighed any claim of privilege.

The appellant mother appealed an order varying child and spousal support.

The respondent father had previously failed to disclose financial information, resulting in an uncontested order imputing his income at $100,000.

Three months later, he voluntarily quit his $85,000 job for a $35,000 job.

Years later, he sought to vary the support order, relying on the tax information he had previously withheld.

The motions judge reduced the imputed income retroactively to $85,000 and prospectively to $57,200.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge erred in relying on previously withheld disclosure to retroactively vary support, and made a palpable and overriding error by imputing a lower income without evidence that the father was incapable of earning the higher amount.

The applicant and respondent were in a volatile, on-again/off-again relationship for several years.

After they separated, the applicant claimed the respondent was unjustly enriched by his financial and other contributions, seeking a monetary award of $55,200 based on a 'joint family venture' and a 'value surviving' calculation.

The respondent denied the claim and sought repayment of funds advanced for stock market investments and credit card debt.

The court dismissed the applicant's unjust enrichment claim, finding no joint family venture and that his contributions were largely for rent and groceries.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $3,700 as a return of investment capital and $3,122 for credit card debt.