Douglas R. Beamish

This costs endorsement followed an eight-day trial primarily concerning custody, access, and various financial issues.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $125,000, while the respondent argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court conducted a contextual analysis of success, considering the importance of issues and time devoted to them, rather than a simple tally.

It found that success was divided across the multiple contested issues, including custody, access, child support, spousal support, equalization, occupation rent, and matrimonial home carrying costs.

The court also noted that both parties contributed to the inefficiency of the litigation by pursuing minor issues and incurring disproportionate legal fees.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs payable by either party.

This family law trial addressed custody and access for two children, property equalization, retroactive s. 7 expenses, and spousal support.

The applicant sought sole custody and spousal support, while the respondent sought joint custody.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, finding that the high-conflict environment and the parties' inability to communicate made joint custody unworkable.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment, occupation rent, and child support, but the applicant's claim for spousal support was denied due to a lack of economic disadvantage from the marriage or its breakdown.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a 9-day trial where the applicant, Joan Ann Mary Fox, was largely successful in her claims for spousal and child support arrears.

The court found the respondent, James Henry Fox, acted in bad faith due to extensive financial non-disclosure, deliberate destruction of business records, and causing extraordinary delay in the litigation.

The respondent's offers to settle were deemed unreasonable, partly because they did not include costs and were made without adequate financial disclosure.

Consequently, the applicant was awarded costs on a full recovery basis, subject to minor adjustments for duplication of counsel work, travel time, previous counsel's fees, and a small amount for the respondent's limited success on four minor issues.

The Father brought a motion seeking an alternating weekly summer parenting schedule and a variation of the parenting time commencing September 1, 2018.

The court limited the motion to summer access, as leave for the variation was not granted.

The Father argued for a "week about" schedule based on an OCL report's future recommendation, while the Mother raised concerns about a child's mental health, which the court found inconsistent and unsubstantiated for the purpose of the motion.

The court declined to vary the summer access from the 2017 agreement, which provided each parent with one full week in July and one in August, with the regular schedule applying otherwise.

In additional reasons following a family law trial, the court resolved four outstanding issues regarding spousal support arrears.

The court confirmed the adjusted support commenced on the date of the application, accepted the parties' agreement on pre-judgment interest, and determined the net after-tax spousal support owing was $666,000 by factoring in the tax deductions for legal fees actually utilized by the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim for lost RRSP savings as speculative and not advanced at trial.

At the commencement of a family law trial, the respondent father sought to introduce bank records as proof of his payment of section 7 expenses.

The records had not been previously disclosed, despite a prior court order requiring their production within 60 days.

The court refused to admit the documents, finding that their late disclosure amounted to trial by ambush, prejudiced the applicant mother's trial preparation, and formed part of a pattern of non-disclosure by the respondent.

Following a 22-year marriage, the applicant sought spousal support, retroactive child support, and remedies for spoliation of evidence and civil contempt.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, refusing to impute full-time income to her.

The court included the respondent's significant post-separation income increases in the support calculation, ordering indefinite spousal support of $16,734 per month.

The court also ordered a retroactive adjustment for child and spousal support.

Furthermore, the court drew an adverse inference against the respondent for intentionally destroying business records (spoliation) and found him in civil contempt for selling a property in breach of a court order, imposing a $10,000 penalty.