Scott C. Vining

This eight-day trial addressed the validity of a Separation Agreement, child support, and parenting arrangements.

The court upheld the Separation Agreement as valid, allowing the applicant to purchase the matrimonial home for $50,000 plus prejudgment interest, with CRA liens to be resolved by the applicant paying the CRA directly.

The respondent's claims to set aside the agreement, for occupation rent, spousal support, and pension equalization were dismissed.

The court ordered the respondent to pay ongoing child support of $556 per month and retroactive child support of $15,819.72, along with 38% of past and future s.7 expenses (except post-secondary, which are 50/50).

Joint decision-making responsibility for the child was maintained.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2014 child support order, seeking retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent argued he had the child 40% of the time and that his income should be reduced by travel expenses to work.

The court found the respondent did not meet the 40% threshold and that commuting to a single work location did not qualify as a deductible travel expense.

Applying the D.B.S. factors, the court ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2015, finding the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose significant income increases.

The parties, married in 1998 and separated in 2016, sought resolution on spousal and child support and equalization of net family property.

The court addressed Mr. Jantzen's income for support calculations, considering his termination from employment and health issues.

Retroactive support arrears were calculated and adjusted for tax neutrality and child tax benefits.

For ongoing support, Mr. Jantzen, currently unemployed, was ordered to make reasonable efforts to secure employment and provide regular updates.

The court ordered the matrimonial farm property to be listed for sale to ensure fair market value, rejecting the applicant's request for a vesting order based on an appraisal.

The respondent's pension was ordered to be divided equally at source.

Various chattels were valued for equalization, and a divorce was granted.

The court considered costs following a six-day family law trial where the father's motion to change a final order was partially granted, resulting in expanded access and reduced ongoing child support, but no retroactive reduction or arrears adjustment.

Both parties sought costs on different bases (substantial indemnity for the mother, partial indemnity for the father).

The court found mixed success for both parties, noted past unreasonable conduct by both, and observed that neither party achieved a result as favourable as their offers to settle.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

This case involves a father's motion to change a 2010 final order concerning custody, access, and child support for his two sons.

The mother unilaterally relocated with the children to Elmira, violating a previous court order.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the relocation, necessitating a fresh inquiry into the children's best interests.

The father was granted expanded access during March Breaks and an additional week in summer, along with electronic access, but his request for three consecutive weekends per month was denied.

The court dismissed the father's request for a retroactive reduction in child support arrears due to his poor payment history and delay.

However, the father's ongoing child support obligation was reduced by imputing his annual income at $50,000, down from the previously attributed $60,000.

The court also addressed the preliminary issue of the father's capacity to litigate as an undischarged bankrupt, confirming that family law claims for custody, access, and child support are not barred.

A costs decision in a family law matter involving child support and custody disputes.

The mother sought child support from the father in 2009, but the father failed to provide financial disclosure and instead brought multiple motions to change custody, access, and contempt motions against the mother.

The father's counsel repeatedly failed to appear in court as directed.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable throughout the litigation and awarded the mother costs of $9,000 payable at $200 per month, plus ordered the father's counsel to pay $910 in costs for failing to appear prepared for trial on two consecutive days.