Sobika Sadacharam

The appellant father sought a stay pending appeal of retroactive child support and costs orders, reinstatement of his suspended driver's licence, and a refraining order against further federal enforcement measures.

The court held that the appeal met the low serious-issue threshold in relation to the application of retroactive support principles and the departure from the presumptive three-year period, but the interests of justice did not favour a stay because the balance of convenience, clean hands, and delay all weighed against the moving party.

Relief under the support-enforcement scheme was also denied because the moving party had not satisfied the statutory conditions for driver's licence reinstatement or for preventing a federal licence denial application.

The court nonetheless directed that monies paid to the Director in excess of the prior unstayed costs order and any costs ordered on the motion be held pending disposition of the appeal.

The moving party sought a stay of a 2019 interim without prejudice spousal support order and a direction that the Family Responsibility Office refrain from reporting arrears to credit bureaus.

The moving party retired in 2021 after being laid off, reducing his annual income from over $280,000 to approximately $55,000, while the support obligation of $5,700 per month remained in force.

The court applied the four-part test from Clark v. Vanderhoeven and found the moving party established a strong prima facie case for variation, clear hardship, urgency, and clean hands.

The motion was granted and the support order and support deduction order were stayed pending final determination of spousal support issues.