Caroline Kelly

The parties sought costs following several motions, including an urgent motion without notice brought by the applicant to allow the children to attend their grandfather's funeral, and a subsequent motion where success was divided on issues of parenting time, sale of the matrimonial home, and a section 30 assessment.

The court found that success was divided on the main motion and neither party beat their settlement offers, resulting in no costs being awarded for those appearances.

However, the court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the urgent motion, finding the respondent's refusal to allow the children to attend the funeral was unreasonable.

The respondent was ordered to pay $1,725.79 in costs.

The father brought a motion for equal time sharing of the children and the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The mother brought a cross-motion for the appointment of a social worker to conduct a parenting assessment under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court granted the father's request for week-about access, finding both parents capable and that a specified schedule would lessen conflict.

The court dismissed the motion for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home to maintain stability for the children pending trial.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, ordering a s. 30 parenting assessment with costs shared equally.

The applicant sought to correct a previous consent order regarding the division of the respondent's pension under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, specifically concerning the accrual of interest.

The applicant argued for 2% compound interest, citing a mistake in the original order which omitted the agreed-upon interest rate from settlement offers.

The court, applying principles of contract law and rectification, found that the parties had indeed agreed to 2% simple interest, not compound, and ordered the amendment of the original order to reflect 2% simple interest from the date of separation.

The parties separated after a four-year marriage.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6)(e) of the Family Law Act, arguing that equal division would be unconscionable because he brought the fully-owned matrimonial home into the short marriage.

The court valued several disputed assets, including a bush lot and a contingent interest in property.

The court concluded that full equalization would be unconscionable given the short marriage and the disparity in pre-marriage assets, ordering the applicant to pay 80% of the calculated equalization amount.

The applicant brought a motion to freeze funds removed from a joint investment account and for an accounting.

The respondent had transferred the entire joint account, derived from the sale of his farm, to his sole control.

The applicant argued the funds were joint property, while the respondent claimed they were for estate planning and his sole income source.

The court, applying Section 14 of the Family Law Act, found that while some control was necessary, the applicant's request for a full freeze was overreaching.

A preservation order was issued for one half the account's value at separation, with conditions proposed by the respondent, reflecting the historical pattern of usage.

Costs were fixed in the cause.

This decision addresses the terms of a father's access to his two young children following separation, with a separate decision to follow on property and equalization issues.

The court considered two OCL reports, which highlighted parental rigidity and the need for a gradual increase in the father's access, coupled with specific safety measures at his home.

The court established a detailed, staged access schedule for the father, gradually increasing overnight access for both children, and imposed conditions on the father regarding home safety (gating wood stoves, car seat inspection, proper sleeping arrangements) and communication.

The court criticized the mother for unduly limiting access and encouraging a child's dependency, and the father for his stubbornness in addressing safety recommendations.

The applicant requested that the court reconsider its previous endorsement to address a request for disclosure of information regarding the composition of a third-party corporation's customers.

The respondent and the third party objected.

The court acknowledged it had inadvertently failed to rule on the specific request in its original endorsement, but denied the disclosure request, balancing relevancy, potential damage to the corporation, and proportionality.

The parties filed costs submissions following an interim spousal support motion.

The party seeking support sought $15,000 in costs, claiming 68 hours of work at $350 per hour, while the opposing party argued each side should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the party seeking support was the successful party but noted the issues were not complex and the time claimed was disproportionate to the amounts in issue and the parties' financial means.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principle of proportionality, the court fixed the costs award at $4,500 inclusive of disbursements.

On an interim motion for spousal support following a 26‑year marriage, the responding spouse sought support at the mid‑range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, retroactive payments, and life insurance security.

The court accepted entitlement to spousal support but addressed quantum by considering the payor’s income, mandatory pension deductions, and financial assistance provided to an adult child.

The court also imputed modest income to the recipient spouse due to a lack of efforts to seek employment following separation.

Applying the SSAG as a guide, the court fixed interim spousal support below the requested mid‑range amount and required life insurance security at a reduced level.

Retroactive support was declined on the interim motion and broader financial disclosure requests were limited as disproportionate.

The applicant brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the respondent’s Answer in a family law proceeding on the basis that they were irrelevant, prejudicial, scandalous, and contrary to the rules of pleading.

The respondent sought leave to file an Amended Answer deleting some impugned paragraphs.

The court emphasized that family law pleadings must still comply with relevance principles despite the emotional nature of such disputes.

Several allegations, including references to pre‑marriage medical events and generalized abuse claims unrelated to relief sought, were struck as irrelevant.

Portions of one paragraph relating to the respondent’s diminished capacity to obtain employment were permitted with amendment because they related to the spousal support issues.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 14(22) of the Family Law Rules to strike multiple paragraphs from the respondent’s Amended Answer in ongoing parenting litigation concerning the parties’ child.

The challenged pleadings alleged details about the parties’ relationship, the applicant’s family finances, and prior litigation involving the respondent.

The court held that pleadings must contain material facts relevant to the issues and must not include inflammatory allegations, collateral matters, or evidence that could delay or prejudice a fair trial.

Several paragraphs were struck as irrelevant, prejudicial, or consisting of evidence rather than material facts, while some paragraphs were permitted to remain.

The respondent was granted leave to amend portions of the pleading consistent with the court’s guidance.

Following a four‑day family law trial concerning the appropriate school for the parties’ child, the successful party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $234,000 based on offers to settle and alleged unreasonable conduct by the other party.

The court confirmed the presumption under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules that the successful party is entitled to costs but emphasized that the quantum must remain fair and reasonable in light of the nature of the dispute, the complexity of the issue, and the parties’ financial circumstances.

The court found both parties acted reasonably and rejected claims for full recovery, significantly reducing counsel’s hourly rates and the hours claimed.

Applying the reasonableness principle and considering Rule 24 factors, the court fixed fees at $73,964.15 plus disbursements.

A total costs award of $78,028.03 was ordered, payable in monthly instalments.