Debora Scholey

This costs endorsement followed a motion to change spousal support.

The applicant initially sought termination of spousal support, later amending his position to seek variation.

The respondent sought to maintain support, obtain life insurance, and a retroactive cost-of-living adjustment.

The court varied spousal support, rejected the life insurance request, and granted a partial retroactive cost-of-living adjustment.

In determining costs, the court considered the parties' success, the reasonableness of their positions and settlement offers, and their financial circumstances.

The applicant was deemed the more successful party overall, despite his initial unreasonable position, and was awarded net costs of $4,220.83, with enforcement stayed.

The applicant brought an interim family law motion seeking sole custody of three children, child support based on imputed income, and permission to relocate with the children from Ottawa to Edmonton.

The court applied the best interests test under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and found that the parties’ inability to communicate made joint custody inappropriate, granting the applicant interim sole custody with defined access to the respondent.

The court declined to impute income under s. 19 of the Child Support Guidelines and ordered interim child support based on the respondent’s reported reduced income.

Applying the mobility framework from Gordon v. Goertz, the court found that relocation would significantly disrupt the children’s relationship with the respondent and their established community.

The relocation request was therefore denied.

Parents with an existing joint custody order brought a motion and cross‑motion regarding custody arrangements once the child reached school age.

The court considered the best interests of the child under s. 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act and reviewed evidence including Children’s Aid Society records, medical records, and affidavit material.

Although the parents previously exercised equal parenting time, the week‑about arrangement became impractical once the child began attending school.

The court found the mother had historically taken the primary role in managing the child’s health, schooling, and day‑to‑day welfare, and that the child’s relationship with siblings in the mother’s household supported stability.

The existing order was varied to provide joint custody with primary residence with the mother and extended parenting time for the father.

Following a family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support, the court determined costs.

The applicant had been substantially successful at trial and was therefore presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that the respondent behaved unreasonably throughout the litigation by providing late and incomplete financial disclosure, which caused delays and additional court appearances.

While settlement offers did not trigger mandatory cost consequences under Rule 18(14), the applicant’s offer was considered more reasonable and closer to the final outcome.

The court fixed costs in favour of the applicant in the amount of $18,962.39 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable forthwith and enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office to Legal Aid Ontario.

Supplementary reasons in a family law proceeding confirming the amount of child support payable for a child following earlier reasons for judgment.

The court clarified the applicable child support calculations based on an imputed annual income of $45,000 to the respondent.

Applying the Quebec Child Support Guidelines, the court fixed support at $350 per month for the period June 1, 2007 to December 1, 2011 and $405 per month commencing January 1, 2012.

The decision supplements earlier reasons and finalizes the support amounts payable.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' seven-year-old child, supervised access for the respondent father, and child support based on imputed income.

The father sought sole custody and contested the imputation of income.

The court granted the mother sole custody, finding she had been the primary caregiver and provided a stable environment, while the father's conduct was inconsistent and not child-focused.

The court ordered supervised access for the father due to his lack of insight and threats to remove the child from the jurisdiction.

Income of $45,000 was imputed to the father for child support purposes due to his failure to provide financial disclosure, with retroactive support ordered.