3 total
Support enforcement relief denied pending appeal of retroactive support and costs orders.
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.
Stay granted where retired payor's income dropped 80% below spousal support obligation.
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.
Motion to vary temporary default order for spousal support dismissed due to lack of credibility and disclosure.
The payor brought a motion to terminate or suspend a temporary default order requiring him to pay $5,000 per month in spousal support.
The payor argued a material change in circumstances due to a decrease in income and medical issues preventing full-time work.
The court found the payor lacked credibility, failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure, and that his alleged income reduction and medical issues either predated the temporary order or were a result of his own misconduct.
The motion was dismissed, and the payor was ordered to continue paying $5,000 per month or face 5 days in jail per default.
