Deborah L. Ditchfield

The applicant mother sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following her successful application to declare the respondent father a vexatious litigant and his unsuccessful motion to extend the time to perfect an appeal.

The mother argued that the father's bad conduct in previous proceedings justified an elevated scale of costs.

The court rejected this argument, holding that conduct in prior proceedings cannot be used to punish a party in the current proceeding.

Costs were awarded to the mother on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $15,181.07, based on the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.

The moving party father sought to vary a 2017 child support order due to a loss of employment and one child ceasing to be a dependent.

The responding party mother conceded the material changes in circumstances.

The court recalculated the father's child support obligations for 2018, 2019, and ongoing for 2020 based on his reduced income.

The court fixed the child support arrears at $3,870.84 and ordered the father to pay $1,500 for previously ordered section 7 orthodontic expenses, dismissing the mother's other section 7 claims.

The maternal grandparents applied for custody of their 9-year-old granddaughter following the death of the child's mother.

The father, who had access under a previous court order, also sought custody.

The court found that the child had lived primarily with her maternal grandparents and had a strong attachment to them, and that moving her would cause further trauma.

The court also noted the father's history of alcohol abuse and the high level of conflict between the parties.

Sole custody was awarded to the maternal grandparents, with a specified access schedule for the father, subject to a prohibition on alcohol consumption during access.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive child support.

The applicant was successful on his motion to sever the divorce and sought costs.

The respondent agreed the applicant was entitled to costs, but disputed the quantum.

The court noted that delay in addressing corollary issues in a companion action unnecessarily complicated the proceeding.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the fixed amount of $1,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought full recovery of trial costs, while the respondent requested that each party bear their own costs.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the applicant was significantly more successful overall, particularly on the key issue of equalization of net family property.

The court also found that the respondent’s conduct, including providing incomplete and misleading information regarding the valuation of a business interest, unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $35,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a divorce trial, the court addressed retroactive child support, a restraining order request, and equalization of net family property.

Retroactive child support was denied because the adult child was not shown to be a dependent within the meaning of the Divorce Act or Family Law Act after age 18.

The court also terminated an existing restraining order, finding insufficient evidence of reasonable fear for personal safety.

In determining equalization, the court rejected parts of the respondent’s financial evidence due to credibility concerns and incomplete disclosure, particularly regarding a family aviation business.

Relying on evidence of a near‑contemporaneous offer to purchase corporate assets, the court valued the respondent’s business interest and ordered an equalization payment to the applicant.

The applicant and respondent separated after a long relationship involving chicken farming.

The applicant claimed that a barn and chicken quotas registered in the respondent's name were held in trust for him or that she was unjustly enriched.

The court found no evidence of an express trust and no unjust enrichment, as the respondent had financed and worked for her own assets.

The court ordered the applicant to pay an equalization payment of $55,798.83, granted joint custody of their child with primary residence to the respondent, and ordered the applicant to pay $600 per month in child support.