Charles Baker

Following a family law trial concerning custody, access, and section 7 expenses for the parties’ child, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondent mother had been largely successful at trial, obtaining sole custody and restrictions on the father’s access until he educated himself about the child’s serious medical condition, along with ongoing section 7 expense contributions.

Although success was somewhat divided on certain financial issues and the respondent had withdrawn an equalization claim, the court found the applicant father had acted unreasonably in the litigation, particularly regarding his refusal to acknowledge or engage with the child’s medical needs.

Considering Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and the parties’ offers to settle, the court concluded the respondent should receive costs, but reduced the award due to mixed success on some issues.

Following a family law motion determining arrears of child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support, the court addressed costs.

The respondent in the underlying motion obtained an order fixing arrears at $37,000, which exceeded the amount proposed in her offer to settle.

Applying the Family Law Rules and the offer to settle regime, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and full recovery thereafter.

After adjusting for unrelated issues and the straightforward nature of the arrears calculation, the court fixed costs at $10,000 plus $800 for the costs submissions, enforceable through a support deduction order.

In a family law proceeding, the moving party brought a motion seeking a declaration of contempt after the responding party transferred substantial funds to an offshore account contrary to a prior non-dissipation order.

The court found the order was clear, the transfers were admitted, and the conduct was wilful or at least wilfully blind.

The responding party’s argument that the transfers merely repaid a debt and were done without understanding the order was rejected.

The court held that court orders must be obeyed and that paying a creditor does not justify breaching a preservation order during ongoing support and property claims.

A declaration of contempt was made, and the responding party was given 60 days to purge the contempt by paying the funds into court.