David J. Hughes

Following a decision on a motion to change and a motion for withdrawal in child protection proceedings, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The Applicant Mother sought substantial indemnity costs against the Respondent Father, while the Father sought costs against both the Mother and the Children's Aid Society.

The court denied costs in the child protection proceedings, noting that costs in such matters require more than mere success.

However, the court awarded costs to the Applicant Mother for the motion to change in the divorce proceedings, as she was the substantially successful party.

The court fixed costs at an elevated partial indemnity rate of $28,319.46, sanctioning the Respondent Father for his unreasonable behaviour in filing voluminous and unnecessary materials.

The applicant brought an emergency motion for relief after the respondent failed to pay spousal or child support and left the matrimonial home mortgages in default.

The applicant was completely successful on the motion.

In this costs endorsement, the court found that the respondent demonstrated bad faith by ignoring his financial obligations and failing to fulfill promises made in a prior agreement.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis up to February 5, 2015, and on a full indemnity basis thereafter, fixed at $10,000 payable immediately.

In a high‑conflict custody, access, and child support proceeding, the responding parent brought a motion to strike the other party’s application and materials due to repeated failures to comply with court orders for financial disclosure, costs, and child support.

The court confirmed that Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules permits sanctions such as striking pleadings for non‑compliance but emphasized that the remedy must be used sparingly, particularly where the best interests of a child are engaged.

Given that custody and parenting issues required a full evidentiary record, striking the pleadings would risk impairing the court’s ability to determine the child’s best interests.

Instead, the court imposed financial consequences, fixed arrears and costs, ordered payment efforts and questioning on financial disclosure, and maintained restrictions on further motions without leave.

Following the breakdown of a 16‑year marriage, the court addressed property division, child support, and spousal support.

The applicant sought unequal division of the matrimonial home and enforcement of several written agreements purporting to allocate the property to her.

The court held the agreements unenforceable due to lack of independent legal advice, uncertainty, and non‑compliance with statutory requirements, and found that equalization would not be unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The respondent established entitlement to spousal support primarily on a needs basis due to a serious psychiatric condition limiting employability.

The court ordered ongoing and retroactive spousal support, modest retroactive child support, and equal division of the matrimonial home proceeds.