Dilani Gunarajah

This is a costs decision arising from a motion brought by the father seeking to stay or suspend enforcement of child support provisions in a separation agreement and to have the Director of the Family Responsibility Office hold collected funds pending resolution of his application to change child support.

The mother opposed the motion and sought immediate release of held funds.

The court found divided success on the motion, with the father obtaining an order that most funds be held pending further court order, but the mother obtaining immediate release of $10,400 and ongoing support of $800 per month.

The court fixed costs at $5,000 payable in the cause, finding that neither party was more successful than the other and that the time claimed by the father was excessive relative to the issues at stake.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to stay or suspend enforcement of child support provisions in a separation agreement filed with the court, to stay enforcement of a support deduction order, and to direct the Director of the Family Responsibility Office to hold collected monies pending resolution of his application to change child support.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought immediate release of collected funds to satisfy arrears.

The central dispute concerned whether the family had continued to reside together after the separation agreement was signed in 2007, which would affect the father's support obligations.

The court found a genuine entitlement issue requiring trial and ordered a partial release of funds to the mother with the balance held pending final determination.

Following a 24-day family law trial regarding child custody, both parents sought costs.

The respondent father, who was awarded sole custody, sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $389,000 based on an offer to settle.

The court found the father was entitled to substantial indemnity costs but significantly reduced the quantum to approximately $107,000 due to his unreasonable behaviour which prolonged the trial.

Unusually, the court also ordered the Office of the Children's Lawyer to pay $20,000 of those costs jointly and severally, finding that the OCL's adversarial stance and failure to seek court assistance regarding the father's non-cooperation protracted the litigation.

The Applicant sought final sole custody, no access for the Respondent, and permission to relocate with the children to Australia.

The Respondent sought therapeutic supervised access and temporary spousal support.

The court granted the Applicant final sole custody and permission to relocate, dismissing the Respondent's motion for therapeutic supervised access, citing the Respondent's past criminal conduct against the children and paternal grandmother.

The court found it was in the children's best interests to deny access and permit relocation.

The Respondent was granted temporary spousal support in a reduced lump sum, with the court departing from Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) calculations due to the unique circumstances and the Respondent's conduct.

The applicant mother and respondent father both sought sole custody of their 13-year-old son.

The child had been living primarily with the father and paternal grandparents since separation.

A Section 30 assessment recommended shared parenting or sole custody to the mother if the father did not move away from his parents, but the court found the assessors favoured the mother.

Following a judicial interview where the child expressed a strong preference to live with his father and fear of his mother, and considering the father's ability to provide a stable environment, the court awarded sole custody to the father.

The mother was granted access every other weekend, with overnight visits conditional on OCL approval of sleeping arrangements, and both parties were ordered to attend counselling.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support of $1,200 per month retroactive to the date of separation, plus a lump sum of $5,000 for schooling costs, and requested that income be imputed to the respondent at $120,000.

The respondent offered $750 per month and opposed income imputation.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on compensatory, non-compensatory, and contractual bases.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his 2013 tax return of $97,899 due to incomplete disclosure and inconsistencies in his financial documentation.

The court awarded temporary spousal support of $1,200 per month as of April 1, 2015, with arrears of $12,000 from June 1, 2014 to March 1, 2015, payable at a minimum of $50 per month.

A motion by a maternal grandfather to be added as a party to child protection proceedings, or alternatively to have specified rights to participate.

The child, a 15½-year-old girl, had been in the temporary care of the Children's Aid Society for one year following allegations of physical and emotional abuse by the mother and failure to protect by the father.

The grandfather proposed a plan for the child's placement in his care.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the grandfather had a legal interest in the proceedings and had proposed a carefully thought-out plan, the child's clear and consistent rejection of contact with him rendered the plan unlikely to be viable.

The court noted that the child's views and preferences are an important factor in determining best interests for a child of this age, and that the parents' counsel could adequately present the grandfather's plan without him being added as a party.

Following a four‑day family law trial primarily concerning custody of the parties’ children, the court addressed costs.

The trial resulted in a shared custody order, retroactive child support, and ongoing spousal support, with the applicant largely successful except on retroactive spousal support.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the applicant achieved substantial success and was presumptively entitled to costs.

Because the applicant obtained a result equal to or better than her formal offer to settle under Rule 18, she was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed at $16,180 inclusive of HST.

A family law trial addressing custody, parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support following separation.

The parties had already been exercising a shared parenting arrangement for several years.

The respondent alleged the applicant had alcohol abuse and parenting deficiencies and sought sole custody, while the applicant sought continuation of shared custody.

The court found the allegations largely unsupported and determined both parties were capable parents.

Joint custody with equal parenting time was ordered, retroactive child support was granted, retroactive spousal support was dismissed due to delay and hardship considerations, and ongoing child and spousal support were set based on imputed and actual incomes.