Diana Carr

This costs endorsement followed a motion where the Applicant father sought increased parenting time based on OCL recommendations, which the Respondent mother opposed.

The court partially granted the father's request for increased parenting time, but not to the full extent sought.

In this decision, the court found the father achieved partial success on the underlying motion and was therefore entitled to some costs.

Considering the absence of formal or informal settlement offers from either party, the reasonableness and proportionality of time spent, and counsel fees, the court awarded the father $3000 in costs.

The applicant father sought increased parenting time for the two children, aged 9 and 4, based on interim recommendations from an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) social worker.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing the existing interim order should continue until the father's criminal trial (for assault and threats against her) concludes.

The court, while exercising caution regarding OCL recommendations before trial, considered the OCL's observations, which noted the son's aggressive behavior in the mother's home and positive behavior with the father, and the son's strong preference to spend more time with the father.

Despite the pending criminal trial, the court found it in the children's best interests to increase the father's parenting time, replacing the previous temporary order with a new schedule including more overnights, pending the criminal judgment and a future settlement conference.

The applicant mother and respondent father proceeded to trial to resolve issues of child support, retroactive child support, and parenting time for their 10-year-old son.

The mother sought retroactive child support and an increase in ongoing support based on the father's increased income, while the father sought increased parenting time, including overnights, and claimed undue hardship regarding support.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding both income and parenting.

The court ordered the father to pay ongoing child support based on his 2020 income of $112,045, finding no undue hardship, and ordered retroactive child support of $16,177 from August 2019.

The court also granted the father's request for increased parenting time, including alternating weekends with overnights and shared holidays, finding it in the child's best interests.

The applicant sought a divorce, joint custody, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court ordered primary residence with the applicant due to the respondent's post-separation anger and its effect on the children.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant, ordered retroactive child and spousal support, and limited spousal support to 10 years.

The applicant's claim for unjust enrichment regarding the respondent's pension was dismissed, and equalization was fixed at $73,393.45.

The respondent was granted partial reimbursement for post-separation expenses.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding interim parenting of their three children pending trial.

Following a custody and access assessment by Dr. Horvath, the parties agreed to unsupervised access for the mother but disagreed on the specific schedule and interim custody.

The court ordered a five-week rotation schedule giving the mother one weekend without children to regroup, and maintained the children's primary residence with the father.

The court declined to make an interim order for parallel custody, leaving decision-making issues for the trial judge, and dismissed the mother's request for a report from the Children's Aid Society.

The respondent moved for interim spousal support, while the applicant cross-moved for the sale of the matrimonial home and summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's claim for an unequal division of sale proceeds.

The court granted interim spousal support to the respondent, ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, and dismissed the applicant's motion for partial summary judgment, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the oral agreement for unequal division of home proceeds.

This motion arose from the Respondent's dispute to the Applicant's garnishment of his bank accounts and income.

The garnishment was for a $16,100 payment conditional on the Respondent receiving specific income tax refunds, which had not yet occurred.

The Respondent sought the return of garnished funds, payment for credit charges, a formal apology, and costs.

The court found the garnishment premature, ordered the return of all garnished monies to the Respondent, and awarded the Respondent $5,000 in costs against the Applicant.

Requests for an apology and credit charges were dismissed due to lack of authority or evidentiary support.

The court also declined to award costs personally against the Applicant's counsel, applying the "extreme caution" principle.

The court determined the costs of a family law application where success was divided but the respondent was overall more successful.

The applicant failed to provide written costs submissions and had failed to attend the last two days of trial.

The respondent had made an offer to settle that was more favourable to the applicant than the final order.

Consequently, the court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a full indemnity basis thereafter, fixing the total costs payable by the applicant at $54,471.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by the Applicant wife for financial disclosure, interim spousal, and child support.

While many issues were resolved by consent on the motion day, the court made interim orders for spousal and child support and ordered further disclosure.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the Respondent's late financial disclosure.

The Respondent sought full costs, arguing his offers to settle were comparable to the outcome.

The court found mixed success on disclosure, acknowledging the Applicant's reasonable pursuit, but noted the Respondent's support offers were close to the ordered amounts.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the Applicant to pay the Respondent fixed costs of $9,215.83, inclusive of HST, considering the offers to settle and the timing of concessions.

This costs endorsement followed motions concerning custody, access, and child support for the parties' daughter.

The applicant sought regular access and costs, while the respondent sought sole decision-making, child-led access, and child support adjustments.

The court found the applicant to be the more successful party, having obtained an order for gradually increasing access, while the respondent's primary requests were denied.

The respondent's conduct was deemed unreasonable due to unilaterally varying a separation agreement, failing to negotiate, and employing delay tactics.

The court awarded the applicant $10,500 in costs, inclusive of HST, but disallowed disbursements and costs related to earlier litigation stages due to insufficient detail and prior adjudication requirements.

The applicant sought to vary a previous order that granted him access to his daughter on the condition that he submit to bi-weekly hair follicle testing.

The applicant argued that the cost of the testing was unexpectedly high and requested a variation under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, claiming a mistake was made regarding the cost.

The respondent opposed the request.

The court dismissed the request, finding no mistake, as the applicant had previously offered to undergo the testing without conditions and had prior knowledge of the testing process.

The parties shared equal physical custody of their 12-year-old daughter until the respondent mother unilaterally terminated the arrangement following an incident where she alleged the applicant father was intoxicated.

The applicant admitted to a binge drinking problem, sought treatment, and provided proof of his efforts, but the respondent continued to withhold access, arguing the child wished to control when she saw the applicant.

The court found that placing the burden of deciding access on the child was not in her best interests and caused her significant stress.

The court ordered a gradual reintegration of access for the applicant, subject to conditions including no alcohol consumption and regular hair follicle testing, and appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The father, who had been restricted to supervised access since 2013 due to criminal charges and allegations by the mother, was acquitted.

During the ongoing family trial, the court delivered immediate oral reasons terminating the supervised access regime.

The court found that the mother failed to rebut the presumption of maximum contact and that the father had demonstrated consistent, loving parenting.

The court ordered joint custody with primary care to the mother, immediate transition to unsupervised access, and reunification counselling for the father and child.

During an ongoing family law trial, the court issued procedural directions governing the completion of evidence and the management of remaining witnesses.

The respondent was permitted to call several witnesses within strict time limits and was directed regarding the orderly presentation of those witnesses.

The court addressed potential testimony from a treating professional, limiting the evidence to factual observations rather than expert opinions.

Directions were also given concerning a late-produced psychiatric report, potential cross‑examination of the author, possible updated views and preferences evidence for the children through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and updated financial disclosure from both parties.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a temporary disclosure order requiring production of bank and credit card statements dating back several years.

The disclosure had been ordered at a settlement conference in a family law proceeding involving a significant claim for retroactive child support and a dispute regarding the appropriate amount of support under s. 4(b) of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court held that the financial disclosure was relevant to issues including the moving party’s ability to pay retroactive support, alleged blameworthy spending conduct, and whether the table amount of support was inappropriate.

The court further held that the judge had authority under the Family Law Rules to make the disclosure order at the settlement conference.

Leave to appeal was denied and the motion dismissed.

The court determined costs following a family law motion and cross‑motion concerning child and spousal support and the potential sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant was found to be the successful party, having obtained support orders and resisted the respondent’s request for sale of the home, although the respondent achieved limited success on certain expense issues.

The court considered the parties’ offers to settle and found the applicant’s offer more closely aligned with the ultimate outcome.

While the applicant sought $18,500 in costs, the court found the hourly rate and some claimed work excessive in light of the issues and the reasonable expectations of the opposing party.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 on a partial recovery, all‑inclusive basis payable within 60 days.

The applicant moved for interim child and spousal support, while the respondent moved for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court determined the applicant's income for support purposes based on her actual 2012 earnings rather than annualizing a recent six-month contract.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support for the older child for 1.5 months of the summer based on actual residency, and apportioned post-secondary expenses.

The respondent's motion to sell the matrimonial home was dismissed due to the applicant's pending constructive trust claim.

The court considered confirmation of a provisional order from the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta varying an earlier divorce judgment respecting child and spousal support.

Certain provisions relating to child support termination and post-secondary expenses were confirmed or varied on consent.

The court determined that retroactive child support should not be varied beyond June 1, 2009 pursuant to the parties’ Minutes of Settlement, resulting in a child support overpayment to be reimbursed to the payor.

The court also addressed variation of spousal support under s. 17 of the Divorce Act, finding a material change in circumstances and setting support at the low range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Ongoing spousal support was ordered at $2,400 per month commencing November 1, 2011.

In a family law proceeding concerning property division and disclosure, the respondent brought a motion seeking to adjourn a scheduled settlement conference and compel further financial disclosure relating to assets allegedly located in Canada and Portugal.

The court refused to adjourn the settlement conference, finding that a prior judicial order had already fixed the date and that delaying the matter to accommodate former counsel who had long ceased acting was not in the interests of justice.

The court reviewed the disputed disclosure requests and ordered limited additional production while permitting the moving party to obtain certain information directly from third parties with the other party’s consent.

Issues concerning whether certain jointly held assets with a parent should be included in the net family property calculation were left for determination at trial.

Success was divided and no costs were awarded.

Following a family law trial involving claims for unjust enrichment and spousal support between former common‑law partners, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The respondent had succeeded on the principal legal issues of entitlement to unjust enrichment and spousal support, though success was divided regarding the quantum of the awards.

The court considered the parties’ conduct, disclosure disputes, and settlement offers under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, as well as the complexity of the issues following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Kerr v. Baranow.

While neither party was found to have acted in bad faith, the respondent was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party.

Balancing divided success and financial circumstances, the court awarded partial costs.