David J. Sherman

Following a family law trial addressing spousal support, child support, and property division, the court determined costs after receiving written submissions.

The respondent to the original application sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that she achieved greater success, particularly on the central issue of spousal support.

The court held that success should be assessed holistically, emphasizing the dominant issue in dispute and the parties’ offers to settle.

While success was mixed on several issues, the court found the respondent had greater success on the primary issue of spousal support.

Costs were therefore awarded on a partial indemnity basis with reductions reflecting divided success, counsel rates, duplication from change of counsel, and disparity in the parties’ financial positions.

Following a trial between the parties in a family law proceeding, counsel advised the court that there had been an apparent miscommunication regarding the issuance of a divorce order.

Both parties jointly requested that a divorce order issue.

The court accepted the consent request and issued an addendum directing that a divorce order be granted.

The decision reflects the court’s authority to correct the record where the parties agree that the original outcome did not reflect their joint position.

Following earlier reasons on family law motions, the court addressed the issue of costs after inviting written submissions when the parties were unable to agree.

The responding party had been largely successful on the substantive motion and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party argued costs should be deferred because the spousal support relief granted was only interim in nature.

The court rejected that argument and held that the successful party was entitled to costs immediately.

Due to insufficient differentiation in counsel’s bill of costs between settled issues and argued issues, the court fixed costs at a reduced all‑inclusive amount.

On cross-motions in a family proceeding, the applicant sought interim access while the respondent sought child and spousal support.

The principal issue was whether the applicant stood in the place of a parent to a stepchild who had lived with the parties for approximately ten years.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada framework for determining whether a person stands in the place of a parent, the court found that the applicant had assumed a parental role and therefore owed support under the Divorce Act.

Interim child support for two children was ordered after accounting for the biological father’s obligation, and interim spousal support was awarded due to the respondent’s illness and substantial loss of income.