Adela Crossley

This is a costs endorsement following a trial concerning parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support for two children.

The mother sought $9,040 in costs while the father sought $4,221.

The court found the mother was the more successful party overall, particularly on custody and child support issues.

The father's unreasonable behaviour, including failure to provide complete financial disclosure and refusal to sever the custody issue, was a significant factor in the costs determination.

The court awarded the mother $6,500 in costs inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $500 per month starting March 1, 2017, and dismissed the father's costs claim.

This trial decision addresses parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support for two young children following the separation of the parties.

The mother sought sole custody with specified access for the father, child support based on an imputed income of $100,000, and spousal support of $950 monthly for three years.

The father sought sole custody and child support, opposing the mother's claims.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding her to be the primary caregiver in a stable home environment.

The court imputed income to both parties: $16,000 to the mother (recognizing her part-time work capacity while pursuing education) and $67,652 to the father (based on his excavator income plus unreported business income from his driving school, grossed-up for tax purposes).

The court awarded child support of $1,005 monthly retroactive to May 1, 2015, and spousal support of $200 monthly indefinite (subject to review after five years), recognizing the mother's strong compensatory claim based on her childcare role during the marriage.

The applicant mother commenced proceedings in Ontario seeking sole custody and permission to relocate to Texas, despite a prior Florida order governing custody.

The respondent father consented to the relocation shortly after, and the mother moved to Texas.

The parties subsequently consented to dismiss the Ontario application and answer, leaving costs to be determined.

The court found the mother acted unreasonably in launching the Ontario proceedings and maintaining that Ontario had jurisdiction after moving to Texas.

The mother was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs to the father.

This is a costs decision arising from a trial decision released on April 13, 2016, in which the father was ordered to pay child support of $458 per month and spousal support of $967 per month based on an assessed annual income of $50,800.

The mother sought costs of $7,288.50, while the father requested no costs be awarded.

The court found the mother was the successful party and awarded costs in her favour, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules, the mother's reasonable behaviour, the father's unreasonable litigation conduct including late financial disclosure, and a prior costs order against the father that remained unpaid.

Trial decision determining child and spousal support obligations following the breakdown of a short marriage between a Russian national and a Mexican-Canadian permanent resident.

The court fixed the respondent's income at $50,800 per annum and ordered child support of $458 per month and indefinite spousal support of $967 per month, both retroactive to June 1, 2015.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on compensatory, non-compensatory, and contractual grounds, particularly given the respondent's immigration sponsorship undertaking and subsequent withdrawal of the sponsorship application.

The respondent was in default of temporary support orders and costs awards at the time of trial.

The respondent (mother) sought costs of $6,780 arising from three court appearances in a family law matter involving access, travel, and child and spousal support issues.

The applicant (father) opposed the costs request.

The court found the mother was the successful party at each appearance and awarded costs of $6,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $250 per month starting October 1, 2015, with a provision that failure to pay within 30 days would render the entire remaining amount immediately due and payable.

This is a costs decision following a three-day Hague Convention hearing in which the court ordered the mother to return two children to their habitual residence in North Carolina and stayed the mother's custody claim.

The respondent father sought full recovery of costs totalling $38,304.87, while the mother sought no costs award.

The court awarded costs of $20,000 to the father, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, with payment suspended for one year to allow the mother to regularize her immigration status and stabilize her living arrangements with the children.

The court permitted enforcement against the mother's real property interests and set-off against any property settlement or division owing to her.

The respondent mother wrongfully removed two children from their habitual residence in North Carolina to Ontario.

The applicant father sought the return of the children pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, alternatively seeking recognition and enforcement of a North Carolina custody order, or an order under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that the removal was wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention, that no grave risk exception applied under Article 13(b), and that the North Carolina order could not be recognized due to lack of reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.

The court ordered the return of the children to North Carolina with specific undertakings and conditions to protect the mother during the transition.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support of $1,200 per month retroactive to the date of separation, plus a lump sum of $5,000 for schooling costs, and requested that income be imputed to the respondent at $120,000.

The respondent offered $750 per month and opposed income imputation.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on compensatory, non-compensatory, and contractual bases.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his 2013 tax return of $97,899 due to incomplete disclosure and inconsistencies in his financial documentation.

The court awarded temporary spousal support of $1,200 per month as of April 1, 2015, with arrears of $12,000 from June 1, 2014 to March 1, 2015, payable at a minimum of $50 per month.

The respondent sought to vary a temporary child and spousal support order on the basis of a material change in circumstances.

The respondent had been ordered to pay support based on imputed income of $86,000 annually as a car salesman.

He subsequently obtained new employment at a lower salary of $60,000 annually, claiming he chose the position to spend more time with the children.

The court dismissed the motion to vary, finding that the respondent had not established changed circumstances sufficient to overcome the res judicata effect of the imputed income determination.

The court held that a parent's obligation to support children at the level they are capable of earning takes precedence over personal choices regarding work-life balance.

The applicant father brought a motion for sole custody of the parties' two children, relying on a section 30 assessment that found the respondent mother was severely alienating the children.

The assessor testified that the mother's influence caused parentification, insecure attachment, and a shared delusion, including false allegations of abuse against the father.

Finding this to be an exceptional case where the assessor's recommendations must be acted upon immediately to prevent grave psychological harm, the court granted the father temporary sole custody, ordered no contact between the mother and children, and terminated the father's child support obligations.

Following settlement of a family law motion to change at conference, the parties made written submissions on the issue of costs.

The court considered the parties’ offers to settle, their litigation conduct, and the principle of proportionality in exercising discretion over costs.

The judge found both parties were equally responsible for how the litigation had been managed and that the outcome reflected equal success.

In the circumstances, the court declined to award costs to either party.

This is a costs decision following a trial on custody, access, and child support issues.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing she was the successful party and that the respondent refused reasonable settlement offers.

The respondent argued the custody outcome was mixed, with the applicant not obtaining unrestricted sole custody as sought, and that his offers to settle were reasonable.

The court awarded the applicant $9,000 in costs, payable in 24 monthly installments, with $2,250 enforceable as child support through the Family Responsibility Office.

A trial decision on custody, access, and child support for an eight-year-old child born to parents who separated in 2008.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with regular access to the respondent father.

The respondent father sought joint custody with a parallel parenting regime where he would have exclusive decision-making authority over education while the applicant would have authority over extracurricular activities.

The court found that the parties had demonstrated poor judgment in exposing the child to their ongoing conflict and were unable to cooperate effectively.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant mother, finding her to be the primary caregiver, while granting the respondent father substantial access rights on a rotating three-week schedule.

The court also ordered child support and addressed special expenses under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.