Kordic v. Bernachi
The motion judge did not err in denying leave to continue the motion to change because the appellant had a demonstrated history of chronic delays, non-compliance with multiple court orders and failure to make complete disclosure; any adjudication of alleged overpayment is contingent on the appellant providing full...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2008 ONCA 282
- Parties
- Applicant (respondent in the Appeal): Angela Marie Kordic; Respondent (appellant in the Appeal): Michael Gerard Bernachi
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 April 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Family / Appeal From Motion Judge Order
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Child Support, Motion to Change, Disclosure, Non Compliance and Delays, Costs
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Angela Marie Kordic
Applicant (respondent in the Appeal)
Michael Gerard Bernachi
Respondent (appellant in the Appeal)
Procedural Posture
Family / Appeal From Motion Judge Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion judge erred in denying leave to continue the motion to change
- 2 Whether the appellant's child support arrears were overstated for the period April 1, 2003 to November 5, 2006 because a child resided with him
- 3 Whether the appellant made full disclosure necessary for child support adjudication
Ratio Decidendi
The motion judge did not err in denying leave to continue the motion to change because the appellant had a demonstrated history of chronic delays, non-compliance with multiple court orders and failure to make complete disclosure; any adjudication of alleged overpayment is contingent on the appellant providing full disclosure including his income for the relevant period.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Motion judge's decision dismissing the appellant's motion to change stands
- Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent in the amount of $18,000 plus G.S.T. and disbursements
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kordic v. Bernachi Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2008-04-16 Neutral citation 2008 ONCA 282 Docket numbers C47798 Judges Moldaver, Michael James; Cronk, Eleanore Ann; Blair, Robert Ashley Subject Family Decision Content CITATION: Kordic v. Bernachi, 2008 ONCA 282 DATE: 20080415 DOCKET: C47798 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO MOLDAVER, CRONK and BLAIR JJ.A. BETWEEN: ANGELA MARIE KORDIC Applicant (Respondent in the Appeal) and MICHAEL GERARD BERNACHI Respondent (Appellant in the Appeal)` Robert N. Kostyniuk, Q.C. for the appellant Michael G. Cochrane for the respondent Heard and endorsed April 9, 2008 On appeal from the order of Justice Donald Ferguson of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 27, 2007. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We see no error in the motion judge’s discretionary decision to deny leave to the appellant to continue with his motion to change. Accordingly, his decision dismissing the appellant’s motion to change stands. [2] In so concluding, we are satisfied that the motion judge properly considered the appellant’s history of chronic delays, non-compliance with multiple court orders and failure to make complete disclosure. On the basis of this history and the record before him, his findings of non-compliance were amply justified. [3] The appellant claims that his arrears of child support are overstated for the period April 1, 2003 to November 5, 2006 because one of the children of the marriage resided with him during that period. He submits that he is entitled to adjudication of this alleged overpayment. [4] The respondent does not contest the appellant’s ability to do so (provided he complies with Ferguson J.’s order), either on the appellant’s own motion or during the continuation of the respondent’s proceedings. We agree with the respondent’s contention but note that it is contingent upon the appellant making full disclosure of all information necessary, including his income during the requisite timeframe, to make the appropriate child support determinations. [5] In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent in the amount of $18,000 plus G.S.T. and disbursements.