Altynay Teshebaeva

This costs endorsement addresses the entitlement and quantum of costs following a family law trial between Christine Anonby and Erik Anonby.

The court finds the mother was the successful party on the primary parenting issue and partially successful on property issues.

The court awards the mother $85,000 in costs, finding her billings reasonable and the father’s litigation conduct not unreasonable except for the division of chattel.

The decision reviews the legal framework for costs in family law, the conduct of the parties, and the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs sought.

This family law trial decision addresses parenting and property claims following a 21-year marriage.

The court determined the best interests of the two youngest children (L.A., 17, and F.A., 15), both on the autistic spectrum.

The mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making for education and autism-related therapies, while the father sought shared parenting.

The court found a history of intimate partner violence by the father and his continued lack of insight into the emotional impact of his actions.

The mother was deemed the primary caregiver, highly attuned to the children's special needs, and the children expressed a clear preference for more time with her.

The court granted the mother primary residence, sole decision-making for education and autism-related programming/therapies, and joint decision-making with final authority to the mother on other issues.

The father was granted alternative weekend and one alternate weeknight parenting time.

On property claims, the mother was attributed $7,000 in pre-marital savings, and the father's extensive request for reconciliation of household goods was largely dismissed as unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision on three issues: the inclusion of a "Maher payment" (110 gold coins) in the net family property (NFP) calculation, the failure to order an unequal division of NFP due to short marriage duration and non-disclosure of assets, and the method of payment for the gold coins.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, affirming the trial judge's decision.

It held that the Maher payment was correctly included, consistent with prior jurisprudence, and found no error in the decision not to order an unequal division given the evidence.

The court also upheld the trial judge's practical approach of deducting the Canadian equivalent of the gold coins from the equalization payment.

A procedural fairness argument was also rejected.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs following a successful motion for disclosure.

The Applicant sought substantial costs, arguing the Respondent's conduct was unreasonable and citing an unaccepted offer to settle.

The Respondent contended the requested amount was excessive and that prior costs issues had been resolved.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court considered the principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour.

The court found the Respondent's counsel's conduct particularly egregious regarding communication and awarded the Applicant $8,000 in costs.

The Applicant, Melissa Saunders, brought a motion seeking disclosure from the Respondent, Anthony Mineault, regarding the valuation of his interest in his law firm, QTMG LLP, and his income for spousal support purposes.

This motion followed a previous order where the Respondent was directed to provide a business valuation report.

The Respondent argued he lacked control over the firm's documents, relying on a corporate law precedent (Himel v. Greenberg) concerning a director's access to corporate information.

The court distinguished Himel, noting that the Respondent, as an equal partner in a limited liability partnership without a partnership agreement, had statutory access to the firm's books under the Partnership Act.

The court found the Respondent had not fulfilled his disclosure obligations and ordered him to provide the requested information and pay the cost of the Applicant's expert's production letter.

The issue of the full cost of the valuation report was reserved.

The moving party father brought a motion for contempt against the responding party mother, alleging she intentionally obstructed his parenting time with their two teenage children on four occasions.

The mother argued she was minimally involved in the exchanges and the children themselves refused to attend.

The court dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother engaged in deliberate conduct to breach the parenting order, noting that passivity does not equate to intentional obstruction.

The respondent father brought a motion for additional interim parenting time on a graduated schedule leading to equal time.

The applicant mother opposed, proposing a slower schedule.

The court considered the child's best interests under s. 16(3) of the Divorce Act, noting concerns about both parents' mental health, the father's history of absences due to military deployments, and allegations of family violence and coercive control against the father.

The court ordered a graduated schedule of unsupervised in-person parenting time for the father, but declined to order overnight parenting time at this stage.

The parties, who separated shortly before their child's birth, resolved most decision-making issues but disputed the father's parenting time.

The father sought to increase his parenting time from five out of 14 days to seven out of 14 days on a 2-2-3 schedule, while the mother sought to maintain the status quo.

The court found that both parents were loving and capable, and that maximizing contact with both parents was in the child's best interests.

The court ordered a graduated increase in the father's parenting time, culminating in a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule by September 2022, and directed that exchanges transition away from the police station to the child's school or the parents' residences.

The moving party sought costs of $17,317.60 on a full recovery basis following a successful summary judgment motion regarding the matrimonial home.

The responding party argued the parties should bear their own costs as the moving party did not obtain the exact order requested.

The court found the moving party was substantially successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

However, as the moving party failed to provide the complete offer to settle, the court could not determine if the costs consequences of Rule 18(14) were triggered.

The court awarded the moving party partial indemnity costs fixed at $9,000.

This trial concerned custody, access, and child support for a three-year-old child.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, primary care, supervised access, a restraining order, and permission to travel.

The respondent father sought joint custody (later sole custody) and equal time-sharing.

The court found the mother engaged in significant "gatekeeping" behavior, demonstrating a disregard for the father's parental rights and court orders.

Despite this, the court granted the mother sole custody and primary residence, prioritizing the child's stability given her young age and long-standing primary care with the mother.

The father was granted a detailed access schedule, and the mother's gatekeeping was strongly condemned.

The mother's requests for supervised access and a restraining order were denied.

Retroactive child support was ordered against the father, and a detailed parenting order was established to counter the mother's gatekeeping.

The Children's Lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody for the mother and specified access for the father for the child, Jack.

The parties agreed on access terms.

The court granted the mother sole custody, giving significant weight to the 16-year-old child's well-reasoned wishes to mitigate parental conflict, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

This endorsement addresses costs following a trial in a family law matter.

The Applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis from the date of his offer to settle and partial indemnity prior, totaling $30,046.00.

The Respondent requested a deduction for retroactive child support and section 7 expenses ($7,424.27) and claimed financial hardship.

The court found the Applicant substantially successful and that the trial outcome was as favorable as or more favorable than his offer to settle.

The court fixed costs payable by the Respondent to the Applicant at $20,000.00, from which the $7,424.27 owed to the Respondent was deducted, resulting in a net payment of $12,575.73 to the Applicant.

This costs decision followed a trial addressing pension equalization, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and medical expenses.

The court found success to be mixed, but the Applicant (Wife) was marginally more successful overall, despite her unreasonable conduct regarding the pension equalization.

The Respondent (Husband) was unsuccessful on a motion to amend his Answer.

Neither party fully achieved their offers to settle.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the parties' conduct, offers, complexity, and proportionality of legal fees, noting the Husband's disproportionately high costs.

The Husband was ordered to pay the Wife $7,500 plus HST and disbursements of $671 plus HST.

The applicant father sought to clarify joint custody and specify access for the child, Gunner, and alternatively, sole custody.

The respondent mother sought sole custody, permission to relocate with Gunner to British Columbia, minimal access for the father, retroactive child and spousal support, Section 7 expenses adjustments, a restraining order, and a police enforcement clause.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the father's inability to exercise joint custody and the mother's new relationship and relocation plan.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, emphasizing the child's best interests and the principle of maximizing contact with both parents and extended family.

Joint custody was maintained, with clarified access provisions for the father.

The court also ordered retroactive child support for a specific period and denied the mother's requests for a restraining order and police enforcement clause.