Yolanta Lewis

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order, seeking retroactive contribution for section 7 expenses (medical, dental, and post-secondary education) incurred on behalf of the parties' adult child.

The court determined the Divorce Act applied and dismissed the motion on multiple grounds.

The applicant failed to establish a material change in circumstances, failed to comply with the previous order's preconditions for claiming section 7 expenses, and provided insufficient evidence to prove ongoing entitlement to child support or to conduct the required analysis under section 3(2) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The parties separated after an eight-year marriage.

The applicant sought a divorce, equalization of net family property, and retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent claimed he met the 40% shared custody threshold under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines and sought retroactive child support from the applicant.

The court found the respondent did not meet the 40% threshold, as school time is not excluded from the calculation.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $17,813 in retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, and $162 per month in ongoing support.

The court also valued the applicant's financial planning business and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $62,308.69.

The applicant and respondent separated after a seven-year marriage.

The applicant sought a divorce, equalization of net family property, and retroactive and ongoing child support, including section 7 expenses.

The respondent claimed he met the 40 percent shared custody threshold under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and sought retroactive child support from the applicant.

The court found the respondent did not meet the 40 percent threshold, as school time is not neutral time and the right of first refusal does not count as access time.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $17,813 in retroactive child support and section 7 expenses, and $162 per month in ongoing child support.

The court also valued the applicant's financial planning business at $36,000 at the date of marriage and $70,000 at the date of separation, ordering the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $62,308.69.