Sometimes, parents separate because of domestic violence, substance abuse, or because there is significant antagonism between the parents. There are also instances where there has been a lengthy separation between the parent and child. Sometimes, one parent does not interact appropriately with a child, possibly causing emotional distress to the child. There may be a risk of abduction.

In these cases, the child’s health and safety must be protected during access visits. Supervised access centres offer such parents a method to address these issues while still allowing access visits to occur. These centres provide a safe and secure setting where access visits and exchanges (pickups and dropoffs) can take place under the supervision of trained staff and volunteers. Staff and volunteers have special skills and are trained to be aware of issues such as family violence, child development, physical, verbal and emotional abuse, mental health, and substance abuse problems. Staff and volunteers are sensitive to the needs of the child, particularly children who are involved in high-conflict custody and access disputes.

Supervised access centres provide a safe, neutral and child-focused setting for access visits between a child and the access parent. Supervised access centres ensure the safety of families, staff and volunteers by staggering dropoff and pickup times, by having staff greet the child at the front door and accompany the child during the visit, and by providing enclosed play areas. Some centres record and provide factual observations of the visits.

As an alternative to using a supervised access centre, the parents may both agree to allow a family member or friend to supervise the access visits or to facilitate exchanges.

In the 2003 decision of Walsh v. Walsh, the wife asked the judge to order her ex-husband to pay a shortfall of child support in the sum of $43,000 for the past few years because his income rose.

In 1997, the court ordered her ex-husband to pay child support pursuant to the Child Support Guidelines based on an income of $175,000. In 2002, the wife discovered that her ex-husband’s income ranged between $214,000 and $376,000 per year for the past few years resulting in a shortfall of approximately $43,000, which her ex-husband should have paid in child support.

The court held that her ex-husband knew that his child support obligation was based on his income, but chose not to disclose his income voluntarily. In the court’s view, he could not now hide behind the defence that the children should not have the benefit of his increased income for this period because his wife did not request his income tax returns until 2002. The ex-husband was ordered to pay the entire shortfall in child support within 45 days.

If child support is supposed to be calculated based on income, then it is reasonable to assume that if a person’s income is reduced because of job loss, then child support should also be reduced. But in the case of Aboagye v. Sakyi [2012] O.J. No. 575, Mr. Justice Sherr ruled that if an employee is fired, he cannot avoid child support based on his own misconduct.

In this case, the parents had four children aged 13, 11, 9, and 4 years. The father worked full-time at two different jobs for at least two years prior to the parties’ separation. He had worked as a forklift operator for one employer since 1996, and as a machine cleaner for a second employer since 2007. The father’s Notice of Assessment for 2009 showed that he earned a gross income of $62,500. The father left his second job as a cleaner at the end of June 2010. He continued working as a forklift operator. The father did not pay any child support until the fall of 2011 and accumulated over $17,000 in child support arrears. The father earned $50,755 in 2012. In court, the father testified that he was fired just three days before the trial began. He stated that he was given vacation pay, but no severance payment. He claimed that this dismissal was wrongful and he planned to sue for wrongful dismissal. The mother testified that the father was a liar and that he conspired with his employer to engineer his job loss for this case.

The father’s employer stated that the father was warned twice about poor performance and was dismissed for cause. The employer listed reasons for his dismissal that included: not following company policy for signing loading lists and work orders; using his cell phone during company time; using his cell phone in the loading area and inside loading containers; being frequently late and absent; accepting money from customers to perform additional services during company time; and damaging company property.

The court held that if the employer was justified in firing the father, then the father cannot use his dismissal as grounds for reducing support. Where the loss or reduction in employment income is the result of one’s own actions or misconduct, the support obligations will not be reduced or cancelled. Moreover, the court stated that if the father is correct that he was wrongfully dismissed, he will likely receive a significant income-replacement award.

In the end, the court imputed to the father an income at $41,000 per year, and was ordered to pay child support based on this amount.