Deborah Ditchfield

The applicant and respondent separated in 2015 and sought a divorce, parenting orders, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the respondent engaged in a campaign of parental alienation, repeatedly breaching court orders and undermining the applicant's relationship with the children.

The applicant was granted decision-making responsibility and a parenting schedule, while the respondent was found in contempt of court.

No retroactive or ongoing Guideline child support was ordered, but the parties were ordered to share special expenses equally.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $62,250.

The parties are parents of a child.

The respondent father previously initiated a Motion to Change seeking unsupervised access and reduced child support, which was ultimately withdrawn with a consent order for no access and increased support.

The remaining issues of enforcement of prior court orders regarding joint debts and costs proceeded to a trial of an issue.

The court granted judgment to the applicant mother for $1,700 for payments made on a joint student line of credit and awarded her $43,000 in costs for the Motion to Change, with $25,000 enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The court determined the costs of an appeal and related motions in a family law matter.

The respondent/appellant was successful on the appeal and sought costs of over $42,000.

The applicant/respondent in appeal argued she should not pay costs due to financial disparity and the impact on their child.

The court found the applicant's litigation conduct unreasonable but held the respondent's claimed costs were disproportionate to the amount at stake.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant father appealed a costs order made following a summary judgment motion that dismissed the respondent mother's claims for retroactive and ongoing extraordinary child expenses.

The mother sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding her financial inability to pay costs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it incomplete and not determinative.

On the merits of the appeal, the court found the motion judge erred in concluding there was divided success and in failing to apply the presumptive costs consequences of rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules given the father's better offers to settle.

The appeal was allowed and costs of the summary judgment motion were fixed at $16,126.29 in favour of the father.

The applicant husband sought an equalization payment and occupation rent following a 39-month cohabitation and marriage.

The court determined several issues regarding the calculation of net family property, including the treatment of a pre-marriage deposit on the matrimonial home, a debt owed by the husband to his former spouse, notional disposition costs for the wife's condominium in China, and whether a vehicle and funds from the wife's mother were excluded gifts or loans.

The court found that an equal division of net family property would be unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act due to the short duration of the marriage and the disproportionate increase in the value of the wife's foreign property, which was unrelated to the marriage.

The husband's equalization payment was reduced from $93,499 to $65,500, and his claim for occupation rent was dismissed.

The parties were unable to settle the issue of costs following the respondent's interim motion regarding the primary residence of the child.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $4,500, arguing she was the successful party and had made reasonable settlement offers.

The respondent argued for no costs or partial indemnity costs in the cause.

The court found the applicant was the successful party on the predominant issue of primary residence and awarded her partial indemnity costs fixed at $3,400.