Annamaria Perruccio

The appellant sought to overturn a trial decision regarding pension division, arguing the trial judge misinterpreted a separation agreement by awarding a current pension value instead of a fixed amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's interpretation reasonable and consistent with the parties' objective intention for a pro-rata share of the pension's actual present value, and rejected the appellant's attempt to introduce fresh evidence as an abuse of process.

The appellant law firm appealed the dismissal of its motion for a charging order under the Solicitors Act and the amendment of trial and costs orders under the Family Law Rules.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the determination that the firm was not "instrumental" in preserving property for a charging order, and that the amendment to secure costs was appropriate under Rule 25(19)(c) to address an inadvertent omission.

The respondent father brought a motion to increase his parenting time with the parties' daughter.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, relying on two separate, unfounded allegations of child abuse she had reported to the police and CAS.

A section 30 assessor recommended a gradual increase in the respondent's parenting time and joint custody.

The court found the assessor's report to be probative and held that increasing the respondent's parenting time was in the child's best interests and in furtherance of the maximum contact principle.

The court ordered a gradual increase in the respondent's parenting time but declined to change interim custody at this stage.

The parties settled all outstanding issues in their family litigation except for costs.

The respondent sought costs, arguing success based on settlement offers and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour.

The applicant argued against awarding costs, or alternatively, for costs in her favour, citing the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court examined the jurisprudence on awarding costs after a global settlement, contrasting approaches that encourage summary determination of costs post-settlement with those that caution against it due to the difficulty in assessing "success" without judicial fact-finding.

Adopting the latter view, the court held that costs should not be awarded after a settlement unless there are compelling reasons, such as clear capitulation or unreasonable behaviour.

Upon review of the parties' offers and conduct, the court found no compelling circumstances to justify a costs award, noting that the settlement reflected divided success and compromise.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs for the proceeding, including the costs submissions.

The parties were involved in family law litigation where costs of a disclosure motion were reserved.

They subsequently agreed to mediation/arbitration and signed a comprehensive Separation Agreement settling all outstanding issues.

The respondent husband later sought a determination of the reserved costs.

The court held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the issue of costs because the parties had comprehensively settled all of their outstanding issues, and the husband failed to raise the issue of reserved costs during the mediation or before signing the settlement documents.

The applicant was successful on an urgent motion for sole custody and limited supervised access.

As the successful party, the applicant sought costs of $14,086.58 on a full recovery basis or $11,000.00 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent opposed the costs, citing his good faith and dire financial situation.

The court applied the presumption under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules that a successful party is entitled to costs.

Finding no circumstances to justify an elevated rate, the court awarded the applicant costs in the amount of $7,500.00.

The parties brought competing motions regarding the matrimonial home, with the applicant mother seeking exclusive possession and the respondent father seeking a nesting order.

The court found a significant level of toxicity and conflict between the parents, making a nesting arrangement inappropriate.

The mother was granted temporary exclusive possession of the home, as she was better able to shield the children from conflict and the father had alternative accommodation available.

The mother was also permitted to restructure the mortgage, and no spousal or child support was ordered at this time.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for sole custody following the respondent father's arrest for domestic violence offences.

The father sought temporary access supervised by his family members.

The court dismissed the father's request for family-supervised access, noting concerns about the proposed facilitators taking sides.

The court ordered temporary supervised access for one hour per week at a supervised access centre for the older child only, finding no benefit to ordering access for the one-and-a-half-month-old infant in that environment.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his motion to set aside minutes of settlement in a family law proceeding.

He argued the motion judge erred in making credibility findings based on affidavit evidence, demonstrated bias, and that the absence of a recording of the motion argument denied him natural justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge was entitled to determine the matter on the affidavits, the judge's criticism of the appellant did not signal bias, and there is no legal requirement for motion arguments to be transcribed.

The applicant payor sought costs against the Director of the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) following a successful motion for a refraining order to prevent the suspension of his driver's licence.

The payor and recipient had agreed to terminate child support after the children moved in with the payor, but FRO continued aggressive enforcement actions, including garnishment and licence suspension notices, despite being informed of the pending motion to change.

The court found that FRO exercised its discretion unreasonably by continuing enforcement when there was a real and substantial dispute pending before the court, and by failing to provide timely and meaningful responses to the payor's counsel.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded against the Director.