Alice M. Palumbo

The applicant sought costs of $87,150.00 on a partial to full indemnity basis following a trial where he was largely successful on primary issues of custody and decision-making.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success, coercive settlement offers, and financial hardship.

The court, applying the principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour, found the applicant to be the more successful party.

While the applicant's offers were not coercive, full indemnity was not warranted as not all terms were achieved.

Considering the respondent's low income and the need for a tempered approach in custody/access cases to avoid discouraging bona fide claims, the court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $15,000.00.

The parties, who separated in 2012, engaged in a high-conflict custody dispute over their child.

Despite previously drafting a handwritten agreement for joint custody and shared parenting, the mother subsequently reneged and began making unilateral decisions regarding the child's health and education.

The court declined to order joint custody due to the parties' inability to communicate effectively.

The court implemented a shared parenting schedule based on the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendations and granted the father final decision-making authority over major issues, finding him better suited to foster the child's best interests.

Child support was also determined, and the father's request for a name change was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change a child support order.

The applicant sought to reduce his child support obligation based on his inability to return to work as anticipated.

While the applicant was largely successful on the motion to change, the court declined to award costs despite his success due to his unreasonable conduct throughout the proceedings, including failure to provide timely and complete financial disclosure, failure to comply with court orders for medical records, and causing unnecessary court appearances and delays.

The applicant sought a retroactive reduction in child support and daycare contributions based on his inability to return to work as anticipated when income was imputed to him in the original April 2014 order.

The applicant had been on long-term disability since May 2013 due to mental health issues and physical ailments.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the circumstances existed at the time of the original order and therefore no change in circumstances had occurred.

The court found that the applicant's inability to return to work in July 2014, contrary to expectations, constituted a change in circumstances warranting a retroactive reduction in support.

The court reduced the applicant's child support obligation from $419.00 to $195.00 per month and adjusted daycare contributions based on the applicant's actual income of $24,408.00 from long-term disability benefits.

The court also ordered a review in 18 months to assess whether the applicant was making reasonable efforts to return to work.