Introduction

In P.G. v. L.R., the court was faced with a high conflict separation. The Applicant father sought increased parenting time, and to limit the support claims made by the Respondent mother. In response, the court emphasized the importance of support obligations by ordering increased child support and interim spousal support relative to the Applicant’s increased income.

Background

The Applicant father and Respondent mother in this case had two children. Prior to being heard at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, two previous motions were heard. Both motions dealt with parenting time.

The parties now seek to vary the Orders for parenting, as well as several financial claims made by the Respondent mother. More specifically, the mother was requesting interim spousal support, and an increase in the ongoing child support. She opposed any changes regarding custody and access from the previous Order. The Applicant father sought more time with the children, and as a result, child support based on a shared parenting formula. He asked the court to impute income to the Respondent mother, arguing that she was choosing not to work, and is living with a new partner requiring her to provide additional financial disclosure.

Analysis

The first issue the court examined was whether to vary the custody and access provisions from the previous Order. Following a test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Boucher could only vary an order for parenting if there had been a material change in circumstances that has or is likely to affect the children. If this threshold is met, the court must then decide what changes are in the best interests of the children.

In examining this issue, Justice Boucher noted that the father had not produced any new evidence for his claim. The only new evidence given was of the children’s desire to spend more time with their father, established from involvement with an Office of the Children’s Lawyer. Despite this, the court still had to look at the best interests of the children. This case was a high conflict separation, with the parties struggling to communicate with one another, and the father refusing to pay the ordered child support. Before and after separation, the mother had also done all the children’s caretaking. As such, Justice Boucher found it in the children’s best interest that the mother keeps decision-making authority, but did allow a slight increase in parenting time for the father, in accordance with the children’s wishes.

The next issue the court examined was child support, where the mother asked for increased payments. The mother was asking for increased support based on the father’s most recent higher income. However, the father argued this income was not guaranteed and was only based on goals he had met and overtime. In response, Justice Boucher ordered increased child support based on the table amount for the father’s increased income. This was because in the future, the father was likely to earn income within range of the increased amount.

The last issue the court examined was interim spousal support. The father argued the mother was not entitled to spousal support, believing she could support herself but was not, and was being supported by a new partner with income she had not disclosed. In response, the mother disputed that she was living with or being supported by a new partner. The mother had also historically done all the caretaking of the children, limiting her ability to earn more income. As a result, Justice Boucher ordered the father to pay interim spousal support.

Conclusion

The case of P.G. v. L.R represents an example of a party attempting to limit their support obligations, both spousal and child. Prior to the hearing, the father had been ordered to pay child support but had stopped and had not previously been ordered to pay spousal support. However, after disclosure showed an increase in the father’s income, the mother wished to have the support obligations revisited. As such, the court was clear in the decision that payor parties are required to meet their support obligations. In this case, such support obligations were dependent on the father’s increased income, obligation to pay child support, and the mother’s entitlement to spousal support.