Vanessa Baker-Murray

The payor father brought a motion to change a 2009 final order that imputed his income at $30,000 for child support purposes.

He sought to retroactively decrease support and rescind approximately $19,000 in arrears owed to the Family Responsibility Office and third-party assignees.

The court found a material change in circumstances as the children were now adults and the father's income had never reached the imputed amount.

Applying the Colucci framework, the court exercised its discretion to retroactively decrease the child support arrears to zero, noting the father's understandable delay, good faith voluntary payments, and severe financial hardship.

The Applicant Mother brought a Motion to Change the Final Order of Justice Mackinnon, seeking sole decision-making authority and a varied parenting schedule for the parties' eight-year-old child.

The Respondent Father sought dismissal of the motion.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's adherence to conspiracy theories, which negatively impacted his ability to make decisions in the child's best interests, particularly regarding health and education.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority and varied the weekday parenting time to reflect the current practice.

However, the alternating weekend parenting time remained unchanged, as it was deemed consistent with the child's best interests.

The applicant mother brought an urgent interim motion seeking an order to permit her to have the parties' seven-year-old child vaccinated against COVID-19.

Under an existing final order, the respondent father had final decision-making responsibility for the child's health.

The father opposed the vaccination, citing concerns over safety and the changing pandemic environment.

The court held that while it could take judicial notice of Health Canada advisories regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, the mother failed to establish a material change in circumstances on an interim basis to justify overriding the father's decision-making authority.

The motion was dismissed, with the issue to be determined at the final hearing of the Motion to Change.

The applicant brought a motion to note the corporate respondent in default and to strike the individual respondent's pleadings for failing to comply with multiple disclosure orders and failing to participate in the proceedings.

The court noted the corporate respondent in default as it had not filed an Answer.

The court struck the individual respondent's pleadings, finding his non-compliance to be willful and egregious, but permitted him to participate in the default hearing solely on the issues of custody and access in the best interests of the child.