Andrew Midgley Nicholls

The appellant appealed a trial order concerning parenting time, decision-making authority, and child support arrears, and sought leave to appeal a costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it repetitive of trial evidence and not meeting the Palmer test.

The Court upheld the trial judge's decisions on equal parenting time (2-2-3 schedule), parallel decision-making (even though parties sought sole authority), and the finding that the appellant waived entitlement to retroactive child support.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied, as the trial judge's discretion was found to be properly exercised based on the appellant's litigation conduct.

The parties, married in 2015 and separated in 2019 with two children, resolved many issues through partial minutes of settlement.

The trial addressed remaining disputes including Easter parenting time, travel notice requirements, child support and arrears (specifically imputation of income for rent-free accommodation), Section 7 expenses, Facetime/phone contact with children, children's birthdays, parent birthdays, and counselling for the children.

The court made specific orders on each of these issues, notably imputing income to the applicant for rent-free housing and ordering a psychological assessment for one child due to concerning behavioral incidents.

The respondent moved to set aside an order obtained by the applicant through an uncontested trial, arguing that he believed mediation was ongoing and was not properly notified.

The applicant opposed, but the court granted the respondent's motion, finding his explanation for default adequate and noting the applicant's conduct in proceeding to an uncontested trial without proper notice or clear communication about the end of mediation was problematic.

The court emphasized the importance of deciding cases on their merits and ordered the applicant to pay costs.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the Applicant's successful motion for child and spousal support for 2019 and 2020.

The Applicant sought $11,256.21 in costs, while the Respondent proposed $3,500.00, arguing partial success on the underlying motion.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the Applicant presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party.

Considering factors such as the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' behaviour, and the reasonableness and proportionality of the legal fees, the court awarded the Applicant fixed costs of $8,208.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within 30 days.

The applicant sought child and spousal support for 2019 and 2020.

The key issues were determining the respondent's income, specifically whether corporate amortization expenses and alleged undeclared cash income should be added back, and whether wages paid to the applicant by the respondent's company should be considered spousal support.

The court found that 50% of 2019 amortization and 100% of 2020 amortization should be added back to the respondent's income for support purposes, as they were deemed book entries not reflecting actual depreciation or replacement needs.

The court declined to impute additional cash income due to lack of evidence and also declined to re-categorize the applicant's 2019 wages as support payments.

Child and spousal support amounts were calculated based on the adjusted incomes.

The applicant mother sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, spousal support, child support, and disclosure, while the respondent father brought a cross-motion for immediate sale of the home.

The court dismissed the father's motion for immediate sale and granted the mother exclusive possession, finding it unfair to dislocate her and the children prematurely given the availability of an early trial.

The court also declined to impute income to either party on an interim basis, citing the complexity of the income analysis and the summary nature of motions.

Temporary child and spousal support were ordered based on the father's stated income, with all support determinations being without prejudice to re-determination at trial.

This motion concerned interim child and spousal support, grossing-up of non-taxable income for a First Nations respondent, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home on a reserve, and other related financial and parenting issues.

The applicant sought grossed-up child support, spousal support, and continued primary residence of the child.

The respondent sought to defer the gross-up issue to trial and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court ordered the respondent's income to be grossed-up for child support purposes on an interim basis, ordered child and spousal support payments and arrears, dismissed the respondent's claim for exclusive possession, and confirmed the child's primary residence with the applicant.

The applicant sought costs after successfully obtaining an order for the return of his child and joint custody, following the respondent's unilateral relocation of the child.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by removing the child without consultation, despite a prior joint custody order.

The court awarded the applicant $5,000 in costs, balancing the bad faith conduct with the impact on the custody order.