Eli Cohen

The respondent brought a Rule 14B motion seeking reconsideration of a spousal support order, specifically challenging the finding that he would be eligible for a full pension in 2025, alleging a mistake.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought costs.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no mistake in the original order that would warrant reconsideration under Rule 25(19), stating any perceived error would require an appeal.

The court then proceeded to determine the costs for both the dismissed 14B motion and the underlying application (trial), assessing success based on the parties' positions and settlement offers, ultimately awarding the applicant partial indemnity costs for both.

This seven-day trial addressed spousal support, including entitlement, quantum, retroactivity, lump sum, and duration, following a 24-year marriage.

The court found the applicant entitled to compensatory support due to career sacrifices and her primary caregiver role.

It determined the income for both parties, awarded retroactive support from June 1, 2020, and ongoing monthly support of $1,900.

However, the request for a lump sum future support award was denied due to the unpredictable future means and needs of the parties.

Indefinite support was deemed appropriate given the long duration of the marriage.

The applicant husband brought an originating application to terminate his spousal support obligations following his voluntary early retirement at age 63.

The parties had previously executed a separation agreement providing for $6,000 per month in spousal support, which was silent on the issue of retirement.

The court held that the husband's voluntary retirement did not constitute a material change in circumstances that would justify deviating from the separation agreement.

The court also rejected the husband's argument that continuing support would constitute impermissible double-dipping.

Spousal support was ordered to continue indefinitely at a reduced quantum of $1,200 per month, retroactive to the date the husband unilaterally ceased payments.

The applicant sought summary judgment for custody and access.

The court granted sole custody to the applicant, finding both parents contributed to a high-conflict environment detrimental to the children.

The decision emphasized the need for professional assessments for the son, James, and therapy for both parents to address anger, hostility, and parenting skills.

Specific orders were made regarding communication, disclosure, and a structured access schedule, with a focus on developing individual relationships with the father, free from conflict.

The parties, former common-law partners, sought interpretation and enforcement of a mediated settlement agreement concerning the buyout of their shared veterinary and fitness businesses.

The applicant sought interest, damages, and costs due to delayed financing, while the respondent sought reductions for alleged undisclosed debts (HST, snow clearing, advertising, bad debt) and accounting/legal fees.

The court dismissed most claims from both parties, finding that the respondent was responsible for business accounts payable and that the delay in financing was attributable to both parties' actions regarding financial records.

The applicant was granted interest as per the original consent order, but no additional damages or costs.

The respondent's claims for deductions and professional costs were dismissed.

The moving party father sought to vary a 2008 child support order, requesting a retroactive adjustment to 2009 when the children began living in a shared parenting arrangement, and reimbursement for overpayments.

The court found a material change in circumstances but limited the retroactive adjustment to three years prior to the motion due to the father's delay in pursuing the matter.

The court ordered the responding party mother to pay $6,000 in retroactive support and adjusted ongoing support obligations to reflect the children's attendance at post-secondary institutions away from home.

The mother's request to extend support obligations to second or third degrees was denied.

The parties settled all outstanding issues regarding custody, access, and child support on the eve of trial and signed Minutes of Settlement.

The issue of costs was preserved for written submissions.

The applicant sought costs of $52,128.70, while the respondent argued for no costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's request, finding that it is inappropriate to award costs based on a settlement where there is no clear successful party or judicial fact-finding on the merits.

No costs were awarded to either party.

The parties consented to set aside a previous order and agreed that the costs of the set-aside order would be determined by written submissions.

The respondent on appeal had made an offer to settle which the appellant accepted just days before responding materials were due, causing the respondent to incur unnecessary preparation costs.

The court found that the appellant's delay in accepting the offer warranted a costs award in favour of the respondent, fixing costs at $5,000.