S. Moss

The applicant father and respondent mother both sought reconsideration of the court's previous calculation of the child's hockey expenses.

The applicant also sought production of the respondent's bank and credit card statements, which the court dismissed as untimely and likely to cause undue delay.

The court set a timetable for written submissions on the recalculation of hockey expenses.

Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to produce specific documentation regarding the child's attendance at a private academy to determine whether the child remains a full-time student for the purposes of child support.

The applicant sought clarification and amendments to a previous decision regarding child support arrears and section 7 expenses.

The court adjusted the arrears calculations for 2014 and 2016 to reflect actual payments made.

The court also reviewed the respondent's claimed hockey expenses, finding them reasonably incurred, but deducted a previously undisclosed refund.

Finally, the court determined that the parties' adult child remained a child of the marriage entitled to support while attending a private academy full-time for high school academic upgrading.

The father brought a motion to hold the mother in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with prior court orders requiring the timely sale of their jointly owned New York property.

The mother brought a cross-motion to stay all future proceedings by the father until he paid outstanding costs orders.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the prior orders did not clearly and unequivocally require the mother to sell the property immediately, but rather permitted her to sign documents to facilitate a sale without the father's consent.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, staying the father's future motions until he satisfied his outstanding costs obligations.

The court issued a post-decision endorsement providing further directions on child support arrears and section 7 expenses.

The applicant submitted an affidavit that went beyond the court's previous request by attempting to challenge the court's interpretation of prior orders, which the court refused to consider.

The court directed the respondent to file an affidavit responding to the applicant's evidence on actual payments made, hockey expenses, and the 18-year-old child's post-secondary plans, failing which the applicant's evidence would be accepted.