Emily Carroll

Following a nine-and-a-half-day family law trial regarding parenting time, schooling, and child support, the applicant father sought $40,000 in costs.

The respondent mother argued each party should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the mother behaved unreasonably regarding child support, schooling, and communication, and noted the father's settlement offers were closer to the final trial outcome.

The court ordered the mother to pay $20,000 in costs to the father.

The parties made written submissions on costs following the applicant's motions for disclosure, interim disbursements, non-depletion of assets, and questioning of third parties.

The respondent sought costs of $47,056.71 on a full recovery basis, arguing he was the successful party and had made a reasonable offer to settle.

The applicant argued for parties to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the respondent was successful on the contentious issues, but noted the applicant was justified in initially bringing the motion for disclosure.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed the respondent's costs globally at $17,750.

The parties, who separated in 2016, proceeded to a trial to resolve issues regarding parenting time, school choice, and child support for their two children.

The court declined to adopt the OCL's recommendation for sole decision-making to the mother, finding both parents capable but struggling with communication.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule, with the children remaining at their current school and the father granted decision-making authority over school choice to provide stability.

Applying section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court found that given the shared parenting arrangement and the parties' respective financial situations, no ongoing child support was payable by either party.

The respondent mother brought a motion for interim sole custody, child support, and spousal support, while the applicant father brought a cross-motion for interim shared parenting and an order that the children remain at their current French Immersion school.

The court found that both parents were capable and involved, and ordered an interim shared parenting regime with equal time and residency.

The court also ordered that the children remain at their current school, noting the parents' prior agreement on French Immersion and the lack of evidence supporting a change.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, and the mother's claim for interim spousal support was dismissed without prejudice.