Thomas Marshall

The court determined two issues: the percentage of time a child spent with each parent and the applicant's income for child support effective January 1, 2017.

The court found that the child did not spend 40% of time with each parent, so s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines did not apply.

The applicant's income was imputed at $75,000 per annum, effective January 1, 2017, as his reasons for leaving a well-paid job to "kick back" and spend more time with his son were insufficient to avoid financial responsibilities, and he also received undeclared cash payments.

The respondent mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim support, and a temporary parenting order.

The parties continued to reside together post-separation, creating a highly acrimonious and stressful environment for the children.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession, finding it in the children's best interests to remain in their established neighborhood with their primary caregiver.

The court also ordered shared parenting, interim support of $2,000 per month plus household expenses, and comprehensive financial disclosure from the father.

The court determined the issue of costs following a family law decision in which both parties claimed entitlement to costs.

The court found that success was divided between the parties.

Although the applicant had served multiple offers to settle, the court concluded that the offers did not materially affect the costs analysis because the applicant matched only one of the offers while failing to match the others.

In the circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to decline awarding costs to either party.

The parties, who were never married, separated and signed a separation agreement giving primary residence to the applicant mother.

The respondent father later retired from the Armed Forces, moved to Sudbury, and sought custody of the children or a reduction in child support.

The applicant sought to set aside the separation agreement, claiming duress and lack of disclosure regarding the respondent's pension.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the agreement, finding it was negotiated with counsel and based on the applicant's own counterproposal.

The court also dismissed the respondent's claim for custody, maintaining the status quo to avoid disrupting the children, but ordered a review due to concerns about school absenteeism.

Child support was temporarily reduced based on the respondent's pension income, with a warning that income would be imputed if he did not secure employment.