Victoria Starr

The respondent father brought a motion to vary child support and reduce arrears accumulated under a final order requiring him to pay $375 per month.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court found that while the father experienced a material change in circumstances by May 2009 (unemployment following layoffs), he was intentionally underemployed from May 2009 through May 2014.

The court imputed an annual income of $41,600 to the father based on his earning capacity as a certified drywall finisher, maintaining his support obligation at $375 per month for the retroactive period.

The court reduced arrears by $5,000 and ordered the father to repay remaining arrears at $500 per month, increasing to $675 per month following the child's adoption by the mother's new partner.

The applicant mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final restraining order against the respondent father, prohibiting him from communicating directly or indirectly with the mother and children and from coming within 500 metres of them.

The father had engaged in physical, verbal, and psychological abuse of the mother and children during the marriage and made multiple death threats shortly after separation.

The father was charged with four counts of uttering death threats and one count of uttering threat to damage property.

The court found that the evidence established a history of abuse but dismissed the restraining order motion without prejudice, finding that the mother and children were adequately protected by the father's absence from Canada and the outstanding criminal charges that would result in his arrest upon entry.

However, the court granted a no-contact order formalizing existing restrictions on the father's communication with the mother and children.

This is a temporary care and custody motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Halton Children's Aid Society sought an order that a 13-year-old child remain in the temporary care and custody of her maternal grandmother, subject to supervision and conditions prohibiting the maternal grandfather from being left alone with the child and from sleeping in the family residence at night.

The grandfather faced criminal charges for historical sexual offenses involving multiple alleged victims.

The grandparents sought to have the child remain in their joint care without supervision or with minimal conditions.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of sexual abuse by the grandfather based on credible hearsay evidence of multiple allegations, the pattern of alleged abuse, and the child's age falling within the grandfather's apparent victim profile.

The court rejected a proposed bedroom lock condition as placing inappropriate responsibility on the child and granted the Society's motion, ordering the child to remain in the grandmother's temporary care and custody subject to supervision and the requested conditions.

A costs decision following a motion to change child support.

The applicant sought $15,000 in costs (60% of total costs claimed of $24,000), while the respondent argued for $4,000.

The applicant was largely successful in obtaining the relief sought, including the precise table amount of support, nearly all of the post-secondary contribution, and a considerable amount of arrears.

The court awarded $15,000 in costs, finding the applicant acted reasonably by making two reasonable offers to settle that came very close to the ultimate result, while the respondent acted unreasonably by failing to make any offer to settle, failing to make timely disclosure, and taking unreasonable positions on multiple issues.

Motion to change child support provisions of a December 7, 2011 order.

The applicant sought increased table support and arrears of post-secondary education expenses.

The respondent sought reduced support, termination of support effective April 30, 2015, and credits for overpayments.

The court varied the order to establish new table support amounts based on imputed income, calculated arrears of support, and ordered prospective contributions to post-secondary education expenses.

The court declined to determine whether support should continue beyond the child's first degree, finding the evidence premature and insufficient.