SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 406-10
DATE: 20120719
RE: Linda Dawn Elder v. Scott Frederick Dirstein
BEFORE: Baltman J.
COUNSEL:
Janice Bantle, for the Applicant
Viola Nabrotzky, for the Respondent
C O S T S E N D O R S E M E N T
1This was a trial to determine what income should be imputed to the father for the purposes of child support. The Respondent father, who is self-employed, argued that because his business had been losing money over the last several years, he had in fact overpaid child support, such that the Applicant owed him money.
2Following a two day trial I found in the mother’s favour, concluding that the father had deliberately organized his financial affairs in order to conceal his income.
3The trial also dealt with a smaller issue concerning access to the couple’s daughter, on which the father prevailed.
4The mother seeks $17,320 inclusive of disbursements and HST, on a substantial indemnity basis. Her claim is reasonable and should be recovered in its entirety. The trial was necessitated largely by the father’s obstructive and unreasonable approach. His financial statements contained significant omissions. He gave confusing and contradictory evidence. Over several years he carefully manipulated his affairs in order to frustrate his child support obligations.
5Although the amount recovered was less than what the mother sought, given that the father was alleging that he had overpaid , the mother had no choice but to proceed with the trial. While she was unsuccessful on the access issue, that was a minor issue that required little time and expense at trial.
6After considering these factors along with the provisions of Rule 24, I find that the father should pay $17,320 inclusive of disbursements and HST.
Baltman J.
DATE: July 19, 2012