Adina Schild

Following a trial regarding retroactive child and spousal support, both parties sought costs.

The applicant sought full recovery of $173,660 based on substantial success and offers to settle, while the respondent argued the parties should bear their own costs as she was the successful party.

The court found that success was divided, as the applicant was successful on many issues but failed on his core theory that he had overpaid the respondent.

The court also found the applicant's offers to settle did not entitle him to costs under Rule 24(12).

Ultimately, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2015 final order regarding child support, spousal support arrears, and section 7 expenses.

The court found that the applicant's transition from a law firm partner to a sole proprietor constituted a material change in circumstances, requiring a new method for calculating his income.

The court resolved disputes over the children's residential schedules, finding that the eldest child was not entitled to support during a gap year abroad, and adjusting support for the other children based on shared parenting and university attendance.

After accounting for the applicant's overpayments, section 7 expenses, and lost spousal support tax deductions, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $9,096.

The appellant father appealed a parenting variation order arising from a motion to change under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The appeal challenged the continuation of sole decision-making with the mother, limits on the father’s proactive contact with the child’s service providers, the exchange location, the refusal of video calls, the adjournment of the SIN issue, and the timing of compliance with a name-change term.

The court held that the applicable standard was palpable and overriding error and found that the motion judge had conducted the required fresh best-interests inquiry after a conceded material change in circumstances.

The evidentiary record supported findings of high parental conflict, controlling behaviour, and excessive communications with providers that risked disrupting care for a medically vulnerable child.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 4, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant father brought a 14B motion to re-open a costs decision, arguing his former counsel failed to include certain settlement offers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the omitted offers would not have altered the costs determination.

Noting the father's child support arrears and the excessive litigation history, the court awarded full indemnity costs to the respondent mother and ordered that the father may not seek further relief until he complies with all support and costs orders.

The mother brought a motion to change a shared parenting order to sole custody and primary residence, which was ultimately resolved on consent after significant litigation.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $105,842.66, arguing the father's unreasonable behaviour drove up costs.

The father argued each party should bear their own costs as the matter settled on consent.

The court found the mother was the successful party and the father's entrenched position was unreasonable, but held the mother's claimed costs were disproportionate.

The court awarded the mother costs of $35,000.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims for equalization, spousal support, and a freezing of assets.

The parties separated in 2005, but the wife did not commence her application until 2018.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the equalization claim was statute-barred and the wife failed to meet the test to extend the limitation period under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act due to a lack of apparent grounds for relief, lack of good faith in the delay, and substantial prejudice to the husband.

The court also dismissed the spousal support claim, finding no compensatory basis and that the wife's financial hardship arose from regulatory penalties for securities fraud, not the marriage breakdown.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the husband.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion regarding a weekday access-exchange location.

Both parties filed extensive materials that significantly exceeded the limits set by the Chief's Notice and a prior judicial direction, which the court deemed disproportionate and an abuse of process.

The court refused to hear the motion as constructed and ordered the parties to re-file their evidence, strictly limited to ten pages for affidavit and exhibits, with a three-page limit for reply material.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for a case conference to address access facilitation after his previously proposed facilitator, his sister, tested positive for COVID-19 and required quarantine.

The respondent mother disputed the urgency, arguing the father acted hastily and failed to propose alternative facilitators.

The court, applying principles from Balbontin v. Luwawa and Ribeiro v. Wright regarding COVID-19 and parenting, found the matter urgent.

The father's motion was granted, and an urgent case conference was scheduled to address access facilitation, with specific directions for the parties' submissions.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for a case conference to increase access time for his child and to change the access exchange facilitator.

The respondent mother disputed the urgency of the request, citing the Chief Justice's Notice regarding COVID-19 court operations.

The court applied the urgency criteria from the Chief's Notice and Thomas v. Wohleber, finding that the father's concerns were not immediate, serious, or material, and that the request for expanded parenting time was premature given an ongoing OCL investigation.

The motion was dismissed, and the father was ordered to pay costs to the mother.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion concerning access, but his supporting affidavit grossly exceeded the four-page limit stipulated by the April 17, 2020 (amended) CER Notice to the Profession.

Due to this non-compliance with the practice direction, the court denied the urgent case conference request without prejudice, allowing the applicant to renew the request upon compliance.

The Applicant sought to amend her application to change the date of separation from September 2005 to December 2012, which would bring her equalization claim within the limitation period.

In the alternative, she sought to amend her application to seek an extension of the limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion to change the separation date, finding no triable issue, no reasonable explanation for the change in position, and significant prejudice to the Respondent.

The court granted leave to amend the application to seek an extension of the limitation period, but the merits of the extension were not decided.

The Applicant was ordered to pay costs for the motion and for the Respondent's amended answer.