Anna L. Towlson

This is a costs endorsement following an uncontested family law trial conducted in two phases.

The applicant sought costs recovery for legal fees and disbursements incurred over approximately 24 months, from the preparation of the application through to the final determination of property issues and implementation of orders.

The court determined the scope of recoverable costs and applied principles from established case law regarding costs awards in uncontested trials, considering reasonableness, proportionality, and the conduct of the parties.

This costs decision follows a lengthy family law trial between Nathan Zane Nugent and Melanie Rebecca Nugent, addressing retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, property division, and related issues.

The court found the wife was entirely successful and awarded her $200,000 in costs, citing the husband’s repeated non-compliance with court orders, failure to provide disclosure, and unreasonable conduct throughout the proceedings.

The court reviewed the legislative and case law framework for costs, the role of offers to settle, and the proportionality and reasonableness of the costs sought.

The order is enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

This decision is a partial judgment from a multi-day family law trial concerning retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, and property division.

The court addressed the payor's income for support purposes, including the issue of "double-dipping" from a military pension and the imputation of income from a potential new employment.

The court found that the recipient had a strong compensatory claim for spousal support and that an exception to the "double-dipping" rule applied due to her continuing economic hardship.

The court imputed income to the payor based on an unaccepted job offer, finding the reasons for non-acceptance disingenuous.

The decision also finalized the equalization payment and set out ongoing support obligations.

The Applicant Mother sought to change a Final Order regarding joint decision-making and equally shared parenting of three children, citing a material change in circumstances due to the Respondent Father's non-compliance with court orders, communication issues, and family violence.

The Father sought a return to equally shared parenting.

The court found a material change in circumstances, granted Mother final decision-making authority, and significantly reduced Father's parenting time to alternate Saturdays (non-overnight) and specified holiday time.

Despite imputing income to the Father, no child support was ordered payable by him due to undue hardship based on the Household Standards of Living test.

The mother (S.M.) brought a motion seeking access to and use of youth criminal justice records and Children's Aid Society (CAS) records concerning her child in ongoing child protection proceedings.

The court clarified that CAS records containing youth criminal involvement information are not Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) records and can be disclosed without a youth court order.

It also determined which specific YCJA records were relevant and necessary for use in the child protection proceedings, applying the Wagg and Bailey tests, emphasizing the paramount purpose of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) to promote the best interests of children and the need for fulsome information before the court.

This endorsement addresses a motion by the Applicant to re-open a family law trial to introduce fresh evidence regarding the Respondent's alleged property ownership in Bangladesh, and a determination of costs for the original trial.

The court dismissed the motion to re-open, finding it was brought too late and the proposed evidence was not diligently adduced, which would prejudice the Respondent and necessitate re-doing the trial.

Despite dismissing the motion, the court awarded the Applicant $50,000 in costs, citing the Respondent's litigation misconduct during the trial, including presenting unreliable and potentially fraudulent evidence.

This is a costs endorsement following a parenting and grandparent contact trial.

The respondent, Brittney Trovao, was successful at trial and sought costs against the applicants, Nemanja Grujicic and Georgina Grujicic.

The court found Georgina Grujicic to be the driving force behind the litigation and ordered her to pay $50,000.00 in costs to Brittney Trovao, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The court considered the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, Brittney's success, Georgina's unreasonable conduct (though not bad faith), and Georgina's ability to pay, allowing for installment payments.

No costs were ordered against Nemanja Grujicic.

This family law trial addressed multiple issues arising from a divorce, including the validity of a foreign divorce, ownership of foreign property, equalization of net family property (NFP), adjustments to NFP for asset depletion, child and spousal support arrears, and claims for occupation rent and post-separation adjustments for home expenses.

The court found the foreign divorce invalid due to lack of real and substantial connection to Bangladesh, and dismissed claims regarding foreign property due to unreliable and potentially fraudulent evidence from both parties.

The court adjusted NFP by adding back assets intentionally depleted by the respondent prior to separation.

Child and spousal support arrears were fixed, and ongoing spousal support was ordered.

The respondent's claims for occupation rent and post-separation adjustments for home expenses were dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion alleging a binding settlement for the purchase of the applicant's interest in their jointly owned home, based on pre-litigation counsel correspondence.

The court examined whether such correspondence could constitute a domestic contract under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court concluded that pre-litigation correspondence cannot form a binding domestic contract due to the strict statutory requirements of writing, signatures, and witnessing, and the distinction between pre-litigation negotiation and active litigation settlements.

The motion was dismissed, and the court found as a fact the value of the applicant's equity interest in the property at separation.

This 10-day trial addressed complex family law issues between unmarried parents, including decision-making authority, child relocation, and financial matters.

The court found the father not credible and noted a pattern of family violence.

The mother was granted sole decision-making authority and permission to relocate with the child to British Columbia, as it was deemed in the child's best interests due to the mother's stronger support network and the father's unsupportive and abusive conduct.

The father was ordered to pay child support arrears and a higher proportion of travel costs, and the court declined to impute income to the mother.

The child's surname was changed to include both parents' names.

This endorsement concerns a temporary care hearing under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society, the mother, the maternal grandparents, and the Office of the Children's Lawyer sought to have the child remain in the care of the maternal grandparents.

The father sought to have the child placed in his care.

The court found that the maternal grandparents and mother had "charge of the child" immediately before the CAS intervention.

Applying the laddered approach under s. 94(2) of the CYFSA, and finding no protection concerns with the maternal grandparents, the court ordered the child to remain in their temporary care and custody.

The court also considered the least disruptive placement and the child's best interests, both of which supported placement with the maternal grandparents, despite the father's arguments and historical concerns regarding his conduct.

The respondent father brought a motion to change seeking to set aside a 2012 final order for spousal and child support that was obtained by the applicant mother on an uncontested basis.

The father argued the mother failed to make full and frank disclosure when she proceeded without notice.

The court found that while the mother's disclosure was lacking in some respects, the omissions were not material.

Applying rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, the court dismissed the request to set aside the order due to the father's significant and unexplained delay in bringing the motion, the lack of an arguable defence, and the prejudice that setting aside the order would cause to the mother.

The parties delivered written submissions on costs following a trial regarding child support.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $15,000, while the applicant sought full recovery costs of $39,900.78 or, alternatively, that each party bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found that no costs should be awarded for the period prior to a March 2018 consent order, as costs were not reserved.

Although the respondent was successful on the threshold issue of child support, the applicant was more settlement-focused and made reasonable offers to settle.

The court concluded that the presumption of costs to the successful party was rebutted and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking sole custody and child support.

The parties settled the parenting issues, agreeing to a week-about shared parenting schedule.

The remaining issue was child support, specifically whether the respondent met the 40% threshold under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court found that the time the children spent in school should be considered neutral, as both parents shared responsibility for the children during school hours.

Consequently, the respondent met the 40% threshold, and the applicant, having the higher income, was ordered to pay set-off child support and arrears.

Following a 30-day trial regarding custody, access, and support, the applicant father sought costs capped at $30,000 pursuant to a partial settlement agreement.

The court found the costs request premature because the remaining outstanding issues, specifically the mother's access review pending a psychiatric assessment, had not been fully determined.

The determination of costs liability was deferred until the completion of the access review.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The applicant father sought sole custody of their two children, while the respondent mother sought custody and unsupervised access.

The court found that the mother had exhibited concerning behaviour and communications suggesting potential mental health issues, and had failed to comply with previous court orders regarding access.

The court awarded sole custody to the father, ordered the mother's access to remain supervised, and directed the mother to undergo a psychiatric assessment.

The father was ordered to pay time-limited spousal support, and the mother was ordered to pay child support.

This costs endorsement relates to a child protection appeal where the non-party foster parent, T.N., sought costs against the maternal grandmother, M.T., following the dismissal of M.T.'s appeal.

The court declined to order costs against M.T., reiterating that in child protection cases, cost awards are rare and require more than mere success.

The court found that M.T.'s appeal, though unsuccessful, did not demonstrate unreasonable conduct or bad faith sufficient to warrant a costs order, aligning with the principle that the right to oppose child protection proceedings should not be lightly interfered with.

The parties resolved their dispute without a trial.

The respondent requested costs on a partial indemnity scale, while the applicant opposed any costs order, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction for costs in a negotiated settlement.

The applicant also submitted her own costs if the court decided to address the issue.

Citing the difficulty in determining success or inappropriate behaviour without an adjudication on the merits, the court declined to make any order with respect to costs.

The applicant sought to vary a consent order regarding custody, access, and child support for two children, requesting equal time-sharing and divided decision-making.

The respondent opposed any changes.

The court found a material change in circumstances, primarily due to the applicant's significantly improved mental health and the children's expressed wishes for more time with their mother.

Applying the 'best interests of the child' test, the court granted the variation, ordering joint custody with equal time-sharing and divided decision-making authority for medical, dental, and educational matters.

Child support was reserved for further agreement or hearing.

This is an appeal by the father (appellant) and a cross-appeal by the mother (respondent) from a trial decision concerning custody and access.

The trial judge had deleted a clause from a prior order requiring the mother to seek employment in the Waterloo Region and allowed the children to remain with the mother in Lindsay, Ontario.

The father argued the trial judge erred by treating the matter as mobility rather than enforcement of a contempt order and misapprehending evidence regarding the children's best interests.

The mother cross-appealed on costs and child support.

The appellate court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's decision to treat the matter as mobility and to determine the children's best interests based on current circumstances, upholding the mother as the primary caregiver.

The court also found no reason to intervene on the costs and child support issues.