Beth Leaper

Following a trial where the applicant was successful on claims for custody, child support, and arrears, she sought $8,000 in costs.

The court noted divided success on the issue of access, as the respondent was more successful in obtaining unsupervised access in stages rather than the supervised access sought by the applicant.

Both parties exhibited unreasonable conduct, but the respondent's conduct was found to be more unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant $7,000 in costs, with $5,500 designated as a support order enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, supervised access, and child support.

The respondent father conceded custody but sought unsupervised access.

The court found both parents shared blame for a two-year lapse in access following an incident where the father refused to return the child.

The court ordered sole custody to the mother and a progressive access schedule for the father, initially supervised by the paternal grandparents.

The court also imputed the father's income at $65,000 and ordered him to pay ongoing child support of $594 per month, plus $24,988 in arrears for table support and section 7 childcare expenses.

The applicant mother sought joint custody and primary residence of the child, Cylus, along with child support and s.7 expenses.

The respondent father also sought joint custody with primary residence, child support, and s.7 expenses.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle under the Children's Law Reform Act, determined that the child's primary residence should be with the father, considering the stability he provided and the mother's military career requiring frequent moves.

The court also addressed child support and s.7 expenses, ordering the mother to pay support and share expenses, with adjustments for past travel costs.

Following a family law trial concerning child support and the imputation of income, the court determined costs.

The applicant, having been more successful at trial, was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11), including the importance of the child support issue, the modest complexity arising from the imputation of income, the reasonableness of counsel’s rates, and the time spent on the matter.

The court also considered settlement offers made by the parties.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the amount of $12,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.