The Supreme Court of Canada continues to improve a child's right to support upon the dissolution of marriage or common law spouses.  In ​Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24 Justice Martin, for a unanimous Court, set out the factors a Court must consider on a retroactive reduction.  He stated that three interests must be considered to achieve a just result:

          1.  The child's interest in receiving the support to which they are entitled;
          2.  The parties' interest in certainty and predictability; and
          3.  The interest in securing a fair support calculation in light of the payor's income.

Justice Martin reiterated the firmly established rule that full and frank disclosure of income information by the payor is the very root of the child support framework and an essential part of good faith negotiation.  He confirmed a strict presumption against reducing arrears at all.  The presumption is rebutted only when the payor proves he will never be in a position to pay, even with a modest payment schedule.

Woods (Re), 2021 ONCA 190, confirms the right to an in-person hearing and the principle that video conferencing cannot be imposed on an accused except in limited circumstances.

For a unanimous Court of Appeal for Ontario, Tulloch delivering the judgment on behalf of Huscroft and Thorburn JJ.A., in obiter, stated  at para. 56 that:

Proceeding by video is [not] simply a "procedural irregularity"... the extent to which a video forum impacts an accused’s substantive and procedural rights [and]... the difference between an in-person hearing and a videoconference hearing [are not] insignificant... deviations from in-person hearings are more than mere procedural irregularities.

Important amendments to the Divorce Act and the Children's Law Reform Act come into force today. 

The main policy goals of these amendments are to advance the best interests of the child, speak to the serious problem of family violence, assist in reducing child poverty and to make the family system more user friendly and effective.

Of special importance is the introduction of a more concise framework for considering family violence in relation to decision making as well as the removal of the terms custody and access, which are replaced with decision making and parenting time. 

When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability, journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers look good.  -- Steven Brill

A temporary order is intended to stabilize the parties until a trial can be conducted to permit a full and complete consideration of the issues: Holland v. Fower, 2011 ONSC 4545, at para. 24.  

​Brown v. Brown, 2020 ONSC 7085 (CanLII) recently clarified the law respecting interim variations of final support orders.  The Court reiterated the jurisprudence as follows at paragraph 27:

The applicable test for an interim variation of a final support order (and by extension a stay of the previous one) requires the moving party to prove:
1.   A strong prima facie case;
2.   A clear case of hardship;
3.   Urgency;
4.   That the moving party has come to court with “clean hands”.

The court emphasized that an interim variation should be urgent and that the order should be varied "only to the extent required by the change in circumstances" at para. 28.  The Court should be "mindful" of the original order until the best evidence is available to the decision maker.

The case reemphasizes the difficulty of successfully delivering and concluding an interim variation motion.  Caution and restraint would appear to be the most prudent position until trial or other final disposition.