David Sydney Godard

The court considered costs submissions following the applicant's defiance of a consent order to sell the matrimonial home and her subsequent cross-motion for interim support.

The applicant's conduct, including using the house sale as leverage for more support, was deemed unreasonable and contemptuous.

The court awarded the respondent substantial indemnity costs of $8,015.99, payable forthwith and within 60 days, rejecting the applicant's request to defer payment from equalization due to the need for timely indemnity and to ensure the paying party feels the impact of unreasonable conduct.

The respondent mother sought costs of a custody application brought by the applicant father four months before the children turned eighteen years old.

The father sought sole custody, alleging coercion and undue influence by the mother, and also requested orders for addiction and mental health assessment and a paternity test.

The children, now adults, testified that they had independently chosen to reside with their mother and expressed hurt regarding the father's past conduct.

The court dismissed the application due to loss of jurisdiction once the children reached majority.

The court found the application misguided and unreasonable, particularly given the timing and the children's ages, but did not find bad faith.

The court awarded costs to the mother in a reduced amount, considering the father's limited financial means and disability.

Following marital breakdown, the court determined the respondent’s income for support purposes, retroactive spousal support obligations, and credits relating to children's educational expenses.

The respondent was a commercial real estate agent whose income fluctuated significantly and who failed to provide adequate financial disclosure for the most recent year.

The court drew an adverse inference regarding income and used a multi‑year average including the year of separation to determine income for support purposes.

The court also addressed contributions toward section 7 educational expenses, determining both parents remained responsible despite estrangement between the applicant and one child.

Spousal support was recalculated retroactively and prospectively, with adjustments for credits and child support obligations.

Following a proceeding between former spouses, the successful party sought costs.

The court confirmed that the successful applicant was entitled to costs against the respondent.

Rather than fixing the amount, the court directed that the quantum be determined by an Assessment Officer.

The decision addresses entitlement to costs only.