Tina Mangiacasale

A father sought child support from a mother, who in turn sought significantly greater access to their child.

The court suspended the mother's child support obligations due to her low income and receipt of Ontario Works benefits.

The mother's request for unsupervised access in her home was denied, with the court maintaining the existing community-setting access due to a history of child protection concerns and a lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating improved parenting capacity.

The court ordered that the mother be granted access to the child's medical and educational records and requested further submissions regarding future access arrangements, particularly for special occasions and once the child commences school.

The parties separated after a 13-year cohabitation and 11-year marriage.

The applicant sought to resolve issues of spousal support, child support, and the timing of an agreed $90,000 equalization payment.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the respondent was underemployed and the applicant had unexplained expenses exceeding his declared income.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for ongoing spousal support, finding her entitlement was satisfied by previous payments from the family business.

The applicant was ordered to pay ongoing child support and retroactive arrears, with the equalization payment delayed until company mortgages become due or within three years.

Following a family law trial concerning spousal support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful party sought recovery of legal aid and privately retained legal fees after obtaining a more favourable result than her pre‑trial offer to settle.

The court considered the presumption of costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the cost consequences of an unaccepted offer to settle under Rule 18(14).

The court also found elements of bad faith conduct by the responding party, including non‑compliance with a prior consent order and attempts to minimize income through a closely related corporation.

Costs were fixed at $20,500 inclusive, enforceable as support through the Family Responsibility Office and also enforceable against the respondent’s corporation.