Amanda Taerk

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial concerning parenting arrangements for a seven-year-old child.

The mother sought costs of $3,980 after obtaining sole custody and a specified access schedule favourable to her position.

The father, acting in person, opposed the costs award.

The court found the mother was the successful party and awarded costs of $3,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $200 per month commencing May 1, 2017, with the entire amount becoming due if payment was more than 30 days late.

Motion to change parenting arrangements for a seven-year-old child.

The mother sought to reduce the father's parenting time and maintain sole custody with a modified schedule.

The father sought sole custody with the mother having alternate weekend access.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the original 2012 order, including escalated parental conflict, involvement of child protection services, and police intervention.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with an expanded parenting schedule for the father, rejecting his request for sole custody due to concerns about his judgment, controlling behaviour, and poor insight into the child's emotional needs.

The Applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement and claim retroactive and ongoing spousal support after approximately 12 years of common-law cohabitation.

The court found the separation agreement to be valid and binding, including the waiver of spousal support.

The Applicant failed to prove lack of financial disclosure, duress, or a lack of understanding of the agreement's nature and consequences.

The court also determined that the waiver of support did not result in unconscionable circumstances at the time of trial.

The application was dismissed.

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.