Elise Hallewick

Following the final hearing of an application regarding child support, the successful respondent sought costs of $5,000.

The court found that while the respondent's offer to settle did not strictly meet the requirements for full recovery costs due to a release-like clause, the applicant's unreasonable conduct throughout the proceedings warranted a higher costs award.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $5,000.

The applicant father sought retroactive adjustments to child support and section 7 expenses for the parties' two adult children for the years 2016 to 2022.

The respondent mother argued that child support should be determined based on the children's actual expenses and contributions since turning 18, but noted the father's failure to provide necessary disclosure.

The court dismissed the father's claims, finding he failed to provide sufficient evidence of the children's incomes, expenses, and ability to contribute, and that his conduct in the proceedings was frustrating and wasteful.

The court declared that no further child support was owed and neither child remained eligible.

The applicants' appeal of a decision by the Director of Land Titles was dismissed.

The respondent sought costs of $26,441.90 on a partial indemnity basis for the appeal, which involved a claim for $420 million in compensation for alleged fraudulent conveyances.

The applicants did not provide costs submissions.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57.01 and the principle that costs awarded to the Crown should not be reduced merely because counsel is a salaried officer.

The court found the requested costs reasonable given the complexity and importance of the issues, and ordered the applicants to pay $26,441.90.