Andrew Vankoughnett

This decision addresses a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant to temporarily relocate with the parties' children.

The applicant sought $9,136 in costs, while the respondent argued for no costs.

The court applied the Family Law Rules regarding costs, including the principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour.

While the applicant's offer to settle engaged the presumptive costs consequences of Rule 18(14), the court partially rebutted this presumption.

This was due to the applicant's failure to obtain court authorization for relocation before notifying the respondent of her intent to move, which necessitated the respondent bringing an urgent motion.

The court ultimately awarded the applicant $5,000 in costs, a reduction from the amount sought, balancing the applicant's success with her conduct that contributed to litigation costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a three-day trial concerning parenting and support arrangements.

The respondent (mother) sought $60,000 in costs, while the applicant (father) argued for a maximum of $15,000 and extended payment terms.

The court awarded the mother $24,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $500 per month over four years.

The mother was deemed the more successful party in the underlying trial on key issues including primary residence, decision-making, and parenting time, and partially on child support.

The court noted unreasonable conduct from both parties, including excessive documentation and personal attacks, and emphasized the importance of making severable offers to settle.

The decision also clarified the circumstances for awarding costs for prior litigation steps and ordered a portion of the costs ($9,000) to be enforced as an incident of support.

This trial addressed parenting and child support arrangements for a four-year-old child amidst high parental conflict.

The applicant father sought joint decision-making and shared parenting, while the respondent mother sought sole decision-making, primary residence, and retroactive child support.

The court found both parties unreliable due to their self-serving narratives and intense animosity.

Prioritizing the child's best interests, the court granted the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, with the child attending public school in the mother's catchment area.

The court imputed income to the father and ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2020, along with a revised parenting schedule that increased the father's time but did not establish shared parenting.

Orders regarding travel documentation and communication were also made to mitigate conflict.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to vary a final custody order, seeking temporary sole custody of the parties' child and supervised access for the respondent mother.

The court relied on extensive findings of fact from a related proceeding involving the mother's other child, which detailed her history of non-compliance with court orders, false allegations against both fathers, and emotionally harmful conduct.

Finding that the mother's behaviour posed an immediate risk of emotional harm to the child, the court granted the father temporary sole custody, terminated his child support obligation, ordered supervised access for the mother, and issued a restraining order.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim child and spousal support.

The applicant husband had been voluntarily paying $430 per month in child support based on a declared income of $46,538.

The wife sought to impute an income of $75,000 to the husband, arguing his lifestyle and business interests indicated higher earnings.

The court found a prima facie case for support, imputed the husband's income at $75,000 for the purpose of the interim motion, and ordered him to pay $682 per month in child support and $471 per month in spousal support.