Yvette Virok

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligation following his involuntary termination from employment.

The respondent sought a retroactive increase for 2018 and ongoing support based on imputed income.

The court found a material change in circumstances but declined to retroactively increase support for 2018, as the respondent's needs were being met.

For 2019, support was reduced based on the applicant's actual income.

The court refused to terminate support for 2020 onwards, instead imputing an income of $40,000 to the applicant given his ongoing obligation and capacity to work in lower-paying jobs.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a 2008 separation agreement, seeking to terminate child support for three adult children, terminate spousal support, and rescind arrears.

The responding party mother cross-moved for retroactive adjustments based on imputed income.

The court terminated child support for the two oldest children as of their 23rd birthdays, as agreed in the separation agreement, and ordered table support for the youngest child until her 23rd birthday.

The court declined to terminate spousal support immediately, ordering it to continue until 13 years from the date of the agreement.

The court declined to impute income to the father and refused to rescind his arrears, finding he had no reasonable excuse for unilaterally reducing support payments without formal variation.

The applicant mother sought costs on a full indemnity basis following her successful opposition to the respondent father's motion to relocate the children to Switzerland.

She argued the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith.

The court found that neither party acted unreasonably or in bad faith in the conduct of the litigation.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $5,100 after reducing the time claimed by her counsel for being excessive.

Michael Bielser, the father, brought a motion seeking to enforce a previous consent order (Justice Roger, March 9, 2017, paragraph 7) for the children to return to Switzerland to reside in his primary care.

The mother, Mirjam Bielser, opposed the transfer and sought an order for temporary custody and primary residence of the children in Canada.

The court found that the children's expressed views and preferences regarding their residence were not unequivocal, consistent, or independent, and noted concerns about potential parental lobbying.

The court declined to enforce the order on an interim basis, stating that the complex issues of custody and the children's country of residence should be determined at trial with a full record.

The primary residence of the children was ordered to remain with the mother in Canada pending further agreement or court order.