Valarie Matthews

The applicant mother and respondent father, a common-law couple with one child, separated in 2015.

This trial addressed remaining issues after nine years of litigation, including income imputation for the applicant, child support, division of section 7 expenses, and therapy for the child and family.

The court imputed an income of $72,072 to the applicant, determined child support based on a set-off method, ordered section 7 expenses to be shared proportionate to individual incomes, and mandated family therapy to improve co-parenting and support the child.

The applicant's abandoned relocation claim was formally dismissed.

The applicant sought a restraining order against the second respondent, who is the applicant's aunt and the first respondent's current spouse.

The second respondent moved to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act to grant a restraining order where no parenting orders were in place or sought, and no child was subject to the proceeding.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim against the second respondent.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings in a family law dispute for failure to pay support.

The appeal was brought to the Divisional Court, but the parties agreed the underlying order was final and should have been appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The respondent on appeal sought to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, while the appellant sought a transfer under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court declined to transfer the appeal, finding it lacked merit and the appellant failed to move expeditiously after being notified of the jurisdictional error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $28,000 awarded to the respondent.

This case addresses a father's motion to change child support and a previous costs order, and the mother's cross-motion for variation.

The court found the father's claims of changed circumstances (inability to find employment, homelessness) for 2019 lacked credibility and sufficient effort to secure employment.

While child support for 2020 and 2021 was agreed upon, the court imputed a higher income to the father for 2022 and 2023 due to insufficient disclosure and lack of credibility regarding his earnings and future earning potential as a paralegal.

The court maintained the equal sharing of section 7 expenses, departing from the presumptive rule due to the father's past choices negatively impacting child support.

The court also ruled it had no authority to vary the previous costs order, as it was a final order only changeable on appeal, and imposed a leave requirement for any future motions to change, contingent on the father's compliance with the outstanding costs order.

The applicant father sought to change child and spousal support terms of a 2013 separation agreement following his involuntary job loss in December 2017.

The respondent mother disputed the job loss and opposed the motion.

The court found the termination was genuine and involuntary.

Regarding spousal support, the court found the parties had agreed via text in April 2014 that support would cease upon the respondent's remarriage in February 2014, and the parties had acted consistently with this agreement for nearly four years.

The court rescinded arrears accumulated after April 30, 2014 and suspended prospective spousal support payments, but declined to terminate the respondent's entitlement to spousal support entirely without further evidence.

The court ordered the respondent to repay funds seized by the Family Responsibility Office.

For child support, the court found the job loss constituted a material change and adjusted support downward during the unemployment period, then upward upon the applicant's new employment at higher income.

The court also addressed section 7 expenses for the child's ballet lessons, establishing a fixed annual budget with proportional contributions based on the parties' respective incomes.