Teresa Ciccone

The applicant mother brought a motion for increased ongoing child support, retroactive child support, and section 7 expenses.

She argued the respondent father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose pension and RRSP withdrawals, which she claimed should be included in his income for support purposes.

The court dismissed the claims, finding no blameworthy conduct and ruling that the withdrawals constituted non-recurring income that should be excluded from the child support calculation.

Ongoing child support was varied based solely on the father's employment income, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial decision regarding spousal support, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the rule against double recovery, imputing income, and weighing medical evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the Boston principle in light of the parties' separation agreement and the appellant's reckless depletion of assets.

The court also upheld the imputation of $5,000 in annual income due to the appellant's poor financial decisions and found no error in the trial judge's treatment of the medical evidence.

This is a costs decision in a motion to change a separation agreement regarding spousal support.

The husband brought a motion to end spousal support of $1,000 per month, while the wife sought to increase it.

Both motions were dismissed as there was no material change in circumstances.

The court awarded costs to the wife, finding the husband's conduct unreasonable in bringing the motion without adequate legal basis and in refusing reasonable settlement offers for an extended period.

The court awarded partial costs of $10,000 all-inclusive, enforceable as support, and imposed a condition that the husband obtain court permission before bringing any future motion to change.

The respondent sought to terminate spousal support under a separation agreement, arguing that the applicant was living in a spousal relationship with another man and was intentionally underemployed.

The applicant sought to increase spousal support, citing her retirement.

The court found no material change in circumstances sufficient to justify modifying the separation agreement.

The applicant's retirement at age 60 was consistent with the parties' intentions at the time of signing, as the respondent was already retired.

The evidence did not establish that the applicant was in a spousal relationship.

Both motions to change were dismissed.