3 total
Retroactive child support ordered and income imputed due to payor's failure to disclose income increases.
The mother brought a motion to change a 2015 final order for child support, seeking retroactive and prospective increases.
The father had failed to provide annual financial disclosure as required by the 2015 order, and his income had materially increased.
The court applied the Colucci framework, finding the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose his income increases.
The court imputed income to the father based on minimum wage plus self-employment earnings as a disc jockey.
Retroactive child support was ordered back to January 1, 2020, resulting in arrears of $4,137, alongside ongoing monthly support and proportionate contributions to section 7 expenses.
Father ordered to pay $51,886 in retroactive child support after hiding substantial income increases.
The mother brought a motion to change a 2010 child support order, seeking retroactive and ongoing support based on the father's increased income.
The father had failed to disclose his income increases and claimed a shared parenting arrangement and undue hardship.
The court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by hiding his income and deceiving the mother.
The court imputed the father's income, dismissed his claims of shared parenting and undue hardship, and ordered him to pay $51,886 in retroactive child support arrears and $873 per month in ongoing support.
Hague application dismissed due to lack of custody rights, acquiescence, and grave risk of harm.
The applicant father sought the return of the parties' child to Portugal under the Hague Convention, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent mother.
The child was born in Portugal in 2020 and removed to Canada by the mother in June 2022.
The court found that while the child's habitual residence was Portugal, the father did not have custody rights under Portuguese law that would render the removal wrongful.
Even if the removal were wrongful, the court found two exceptions to mandatory return applied: the father acquiesced to the child remaining in Canada, and there was a grave risk of harm to the child if returned to Portugal due to the father's pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour against the mother.
The father's application was dismissed.
