David Sherman

The applicant and respondent disagreed on their date of separation, which was relevant to claims for divorce, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant claimed the separation date was September 9, 2017, while the respondent claimed it was March 7, 2014.

The court conducted a trial on this discrete issue.

After reviewing the parties' living arrangements, financial affairs, and credibility, the court found the respondent's evidence more reliable.

The court concluded that the parties began living separate and apart on March 7, 2014, following a domestic incident, and that there was no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation after that date.

Following cross-motions concerning parenting time, access logistics, travel permissions, child support, and procedural matters relating to a child of the relationship, both parties sought costs.

The court reviewed the governing principles under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Success on the substantive motion issues was divided, with each party prevailing on some major issues and neither party achieving clear overall success.

The court also found that both parties acted unreasonably in certain respects and neither served an Offer to Settle.

In the circumstances, and considering the nature of custody and access litigation, the court exercised its discretion to decline awarding costs to either party.

A father sought to vary a separation agreement by obtaining equal shared parenting and termination of child support.

The court found the existing joint custody arrangement, with the children residing primarily with the mother during the school week and spending alternate weekends and mid‑week time with the father, was functioning well and in the children’s best interests.

The father provided no expert or other persuasive evidence demonstrating that a shift to equal time would benefit the children, and his proposed schedules were found to prioritize his shiftwork rather than the children’s stability.

The court also determined the agreed child support amount significantly undercut the Child Support Guidelines and that the father failed to establish any special provision justifying the deviation.

Guideline child support was therefore ordered retroactive to the date of the responding claim.

Costs decision following a family law judgment involving custody and financial issues.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful on both custody and economic issues but reduced the level of costs due to her failure to respond to the respondent’s offer to settle and the absence of a comprehensive written offer before trial.

The court awarded partial costs for the custody issues and partial indemnity costs for the economic issues, fixing total costs payable by the respondent.

The endorsement also addressed corrections to the underlying judgment regarding private school fees, directions relating to Family Responsibility Office accounting adjustments, and responsibility for a professional bill.