D.L. Chappel

Following a mid-trial settlement of a protracted custody and access dispute, the applicant and respondent each sought costs of $15,000 against the other, and the applicant also sought costs against the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court dismissed all claims for costs.

The court found that the applicant's unreasonable pursuit of primary residence for three years rebutted the presumption of costs in his favour, while the respondent acted unreasonably by proceeding to trial instead of settling based on her long-held position.

The court also declined to award costs against the OCL, finding no bad faith or patently unreasonable conduct that would justify such an exceptional order.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant sought sole custody of the parties' minor child, child support, spousal support, and an equalization payment.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant.

The court imputed an income of $21,000 to the applicant due to unreasonable business expense deductions and underemployment, and set the respondent's income at $60,000.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support, proportionate section 7 expenses, indefinite spousal support of $300 per month, and an equalization payment of $25,000.

The father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support and child support obligations.

He argued that the mother had alienated the children from him, constituting a material change in circumstances and unconscionable conduct.

He also sought to terminate child support for his adult son, arguing the son had unilaterally repudiated their relationship.

The court dismissed the claims to terminate spousal support and child support for the adult son, finding that both parents contributed to the family breakdown and the father failed to prove unilateral repudiation.

The court adjusted child support to reflect a split custody arrangement and the adult son's post-secondary education expenses.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to terminate child support for his three children and retroactively reduce his support obligations due to job loss and health issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances, terminating support for the eldest child who was no longer a 'child of the marriage' and reducing support for the other two children based on the father's imputed income.

However, the court denied the father's request for a retroactive reduction prior to the date he filed his motion, noting his failure to provide financial disclosure or address the issue promptly.

The court also adjudicated various section 7 extraordinary expenses claimed by the mother.

The parties separated after a 14-year relationship.

The applicant sought a divorce, an unequal division of net family properties under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, and opposed the respondent's claim for spousal support.

The court valued a disputed cottage property at $56,000, preferring the respondent's appraiser.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim for an unequal division, finding that the respondent's use of his significant pre-marriage assets for joint family purposes did not render an equalization unconscionable.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $92,338.55.

The respondent's claim for spousal support was dismissed, as the court imputed income to him and found he had not established entitlement based on need.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order for child support, seeking an increase in monthly support and contributions to section 7 expenses for two adult children attending post-secondary education.

The respondent father failed to provide financial disclosure and his pleadings were struck.

The court imputed an income of $37,500 to the father based on his previous employment and an inheritance.

The court found both children remained children of the marriage.

For the child living at home, the standard Guidelines approach was applied.

For the child living in residence, a pro-rated Table amount was ordered.

Post-secondary expenses were apportioned equally between the mother, the father, and each child (1/3 each).

The applicant mother sought sole custody and child support for the parties' 15-year-old child.

The respondent father requested joint custody or an order requiring consultation on major decisions, and claimed his only income was social assistance.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding the parties' estrangement made joint custody unworkable.

The court imputed an income of $26,000 to the father due to his intentional underemployment and failure to provide financial disclosure, ordering him to pay $210 per month in child support and 53% of section 7 expenses.

The applicant children's aid society brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order that a child be found in need of protection and made a Crown ward without access.

The respondent parents, who had significant cognitive limitations and a history of having four other children made Crown wards, opposed the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the parents failed to respond meaningfully to the society's evidence regarding their inability to parent.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding the child in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship without access.