Amanda Taerk

Following a trial regarding variation of child and spousal support, both parties sought substantial costs awards.

Each argued they were the more successful party after the court ordered a modest reduction in support based on imputed income.

The court found neither party was clearly more successful and criticized both sides for conducting the litigation in a grossly disproportionate manner relative to the financial issues in dispute.

The court also considered the potential impact of a significant costs award on the custodial parent’s ability to support the child.

In the circumstances, the court concluded that fairness and proportionality required that each party bear their own costs.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking security for costs by preventing the sale, transfer, or encumbrance of a property registered in the applicant’s name.

The motion relied primarily on the applicant’s failure to pay a prior $750 costs order and concerns that the property might be transferred to a third party.

The court held that while Rule 24(13) of the Family Law Rules permits security for costs where a costs order remains unpaid, the amount outstanding was minimal and insufficient to justify the order.

The motion was also brought at the conclusion of trial, undermining the policy considerations typically underlying security for costs.

The court further noted that the requested order could affect the interests of a non‑party who contributed to the mortgage and expenses of the property.

The motion was dismissed and previous orders restricting dealings with the property were vacated.