Debra Anne Bertolo

Following a trial on a motion to change custody, access, and child support, the successful respondent sought full indemnity costs of $20,268.38.

The applicant, who was self-represented, did not file responding costs submissions.

The court found the respondent was entitled to costs as the successful party who acted reasonably throughout the proceedings, while the applicant's positions were unreasonable though not amounting to bad faith.

Considering the applicant's limited financial means, the court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $8,500, payable at $200 per month, and designated 50% of the award as arising in relation to support to be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

A family law trial addressing child support, retroactive support, section 7 expenses, and equalization following marital separation.

The respondent failed to provide financial disclosure, including tax returns or financial statements, requiring the court to rely largely on testimonial evidence.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on historical earnings and capacity to earn through employment and landscaping business activities.

Orders were made for retroactive and ongoing child support, contribution toward section 7 expenses, and an equalization payment, largely satisfied from the respondent’s share of matrimonial home proceeds.

Following partial minutes of settlement resolving parenting and certain support issues, the court conducted a trial to determine retroactive child support, retroactive and ongoing section 7 expenses, spousal support, property equalization, and entitlement to the child tax benefit.

The court accepted the applicant’s evidence regarding the historical residence of the children and ordered retroactive child support based on the respondent’s imputed income after he voluntarily left his employment.

The court also awarded retroactive section 7 expenses and directed the parties to share future extraordinary expenses equally.

Although entitlement to spousal support was established, no award was made due to the respondent’s child support obligations.

The court further ordered a modest equalization payment and granted a restraining order against the respondent.