Akash Saha

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a four-day trial concerning parenting and child support orders for a 5-year-old child.

The court analyzed the parties' offers to settle, success on various parenting and support issues, and unreasonable conduct during litigation.

Despite the mother’s partial success on child support, the court found her conduct unreasonable, including making unsupported allegations and filing excessive materials, which rebutted her presumptive entitlement to costs.

Ultimately, the court ordered that neither party pay costs to the other, reflecting the divided success and conduct of the parties.

This trial resolved a high-conflict dispute between unmarried parents regarding the parenting arrangements and child support for their five-year-old son.

The court determined that it was in the child's best interests to have his primary residence with the mother, while increasing the father's parenting time to two out of every three weekends.

Due to the parents' severe communication issues and mutual distrust, the court declined to award sole or joint decision-making responsibility, instead allocating specific decision-making authority for education, medical care, and travel.

Additionally, the court imputed an annual income of $41,600 to the father, ordering him to pay ongoing child support of $377 per month and fixing retroactive child support arrears at $3,081.

This is a costs endorsement following a one-day trial that determined child support arrears owed by the respondent to the applicant.

The court found the respondent owed $16,613 and permitted monthly payments.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $31,899, arguing the respondent acted in bad faith and that her offer to settle should trigger full recovery.

The court found the respondent's behavior unreasonable but not bad faith, and that the applicant's offer to settle was not more favourable than the trial result.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $9,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable in monthly installments of $250, and enforceable as support by the Family Responsibility Office.

This trial addressed the respondent father's retroactive child support obligations for the parties' 14-year-old daughter for the period prior to January 1, 2023.

The applicant mother sought retroactive support from June 1, 2019, based on the father's reported income.

The father claimed no support was owed due to an ongoing relationship and prior payments.

The court found the parties separated in 2015 and deemed the mother a credible witness, while the father was not, noting his failure to provide financial disclosure.

Applying the Colucci framework, the court ordered the father to pay child support arrears of $16,613, retroactive to June 1, 2019, allowing payment over approximately four years, citing the father's blameworthy conduct and the mother's understandable delay due to family violence.