Edward C. Castle

The parties separated after an 18-year marriage.

The applicant sought spousal support, child support for two adult children, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the applicant entitled to compensatory and needs-based spousal support, ordering $551 per month retroactively.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that the adult children's hostile conduct relieved him of his child support obligations, finding no unilateral termination of the relationship.

For equalization, the court preferred the applicant's valuation of chattels and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $168,001.58.

To satisfy this obligation, the court ordered a $150,000 pension transfer (plus tax gross-up) to the applicant, with the remainder to be paid from the respondent's equity upon the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The father brought an interim motion for child and spousal support.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to impute income to the father, arguing he was intentionally underemployed as a real estate agent.

The court declined to impute income, finding the father's reduction in income was reasonable given his diagnosis of an anxiety disorder and his efforts to supplement his income.

The court also declined to include the father's past RRSP withdrawals in his income, as the funds were depleted.

The court ordered the mother to pay net child support and interim spousal support based on the parties' actual incomes, and directed her to reinstate the father on her employment health benefit plan.

Following a successful motion to change a final order regarding child support, the moving party sought costs of $14,188.62 on a partial indemnity scale.

The responding party argued for a reduced quantum of $4,000, citing her inability to pay and alleging unreasonable behaviour by the moving party.

The court found that the moving party was substantially successful and had behaved reasonably throughout the litigation.

Conversely, the court found the responding party behaved unreasonably by failing to make concessions despite clear evidence of a material change in circumstances and by involving the children in the litigation.

The court held that ability to pay is not a complete defence to a costs award and ordered the responding party to pay the full requested amount of $14,188.62.

The moving party father brought a motion to change a final order regarding child support and section 7 expenses, citing a significant decrease in income due to a back injury that prevented him from working as an electrician on tools.

The responding party mother opposed the motion, seeking to impute income to the father, arguing he was intentionally underemployed and hiding pre-tax corporate earnings, and requested a change to the access schedule.

The court found no material change in circumstances to warrant altering the shared custody schedule for the daughter, though it formalized the agreed-upon primary residence of the son with the mother.

The court found a material change in the father's financial circumstances due to his health and reasonable career change, declining to impute income or add pre-tax corporate earnings.

Child support was varied retroactively to the date the motion was served, applying a straight set-off under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, resulting in a finding that the father had overpaid child support and section 7 expenses.

The mother was ordered to repay the overpayment through monthly installments and a temporary suspension of the father's ongoing support obligations.

Following a motion to change child support based on an alleged material change in circumstances, the court determined costs after releasing the underlying judgment.

The respondent father had sought termination or suspension of child support and relief from arrears, while the applicant mother sought imputation of income, enforcement mechanisms, and security for child support.

The court found that both parties achieved some success but that the overall result favoured the applicant mother because the father obtained only limited relief and the court granted security for child support through a lien on his property.

The court also considered the parties’ conduct, the absence of meaningful settlement offers, and the importance of enforcing a child’s right to support.

Balancing the Family Law Rules factors and the parties’ financial circumstances, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant.

A support payor brought a motion to change seeking termination or suspension of child support following a motor vehicle accident that aggravated a shoulder injury and allegedly prevented employment.

The court found the accident constituted a material change in circumstances under s. 17 of the Divorce Act but concluded the payor remained intentionally under‑employed for much of the period after the accident.

The court granted a six‑month grace period suspending child support but maintained the previously imputed income and reinstated ongoing support thereafter.

Arrears were fixed and security was granted through a lien registered against the payor’s real property.

Requests to vest the property in the recipient and to restrict future motions were denied as disproportionate or unsupported.

Following competing applications under the Substitute Decisions Act to appoint guardians for an adult daughter with significant developmental limitations, the successful applicant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $34,000.

The court considered the discretionary principles governing costs under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, including settlement offers and litigation conduct.

Although the applicant had succeeded in the guardianship proceeding, the court found his longstanding failure to provide child support for the daughter constituted relevant conduct justifying denial of costs.

The court declined to rely on the applicant’s settlement offer and also refused to order costs against non-parties.

In the circumstances, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.