Scott Byers

The respondent brought a motion to enforce a Consent Order regarding the annual adjustment of child support.

The applicant argued that the respondent's non-taxable disability income should be imputed in addition to his Line 15000 income.

The court found that the clear wording of the Consent Order precluded the inclusion of income other than the respondent's Line 15000 income.

The applicant was found to be in breach of the Consent Order for failing to sign the necessary documents to adjust the support amount, and was ordered to comply and pay costs.

The respondent father brought a motion for the court to reconsider its previous decision appointing a psychological assessor in a child protection proceeding.

The father argued the court made legal errors and that the assessor had a conflict of interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 25(19)(b) and the court's inherent jurisdiction to reconsider are limited to clerical errors or inadvertent omissions, not substantive legal errors which are the domain of appeals.

Furthermore, the Child, Youth and Family Services Act explicitly prohibits appealing an assessment order.

The court also finalized the terms of the assessment, adopting the agency's open-ended instructions while ensuring the father's indigenous heritage is considered.

The applicant sought costs following her success on two motions regarding jurisdiction and the respondent's constitutional challenge based on aboriginal rights.

The applicant claimed $500,000 on a full recovery basis, including a risk premium.

The court rejected the inclusion of a risk premium in family law cases and found the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not amounting to bad faith.

The court fixed costs at $315,415 and ordered that the costs be designated as a support order enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, as the underlying motions were necessary to clear the path for the applicant's support claims.

The applicant brought a family law application seeking custody, child support, and spousal support.

The respondent, a Haudenosaunee person and member of the Six Nations, filed an Amended Answer challenging the court's jurisdiction and the applicability of Ontario family law legislation, asserting an aboriginal right under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 to have the dispute resolved under Haudenosaunee laws and processes.

The applicant moved to strike the Amended Answer and dismiss the constitutional case summarily.

The court held that while conflict of laws principles apply to the jurisdiction analysis, they must be modified to account for aboriginal rights claims.

However, the court struck the Amended Answer in its entirety, finding that it failed to plead the necessary material facts, that the respondent lacked standing to advance a collective right of self-government individually, and that the broad claim of immunity from Ontario family law was not cognizable under s. 35(1) jurisprudence.

The court declared it had jurisdiction to hear the family law issues and dismissed the respondent's motion for a stay of proceedings.