Emily Elizabeth Banks

This is a costs endorsement following an undefended trial in a family law matter.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing the Respondent's conduct amounted to bad faith, including evading service, failing to provide financial disclosure, and engaging in disturbing and malicious behaviour.

The Respondent contended his conduct did not reach the level of bad faith and that he was partially successful at trial.

The court found the Respondent's protracted and egregious conduct, including a "catch-me-if-you-can" approach to financial disclosure and malicious actions, met the test for bad faith, warranting an award of full recovery costs to the Applicant.

The court dismissed the Respondent's arguments regarding partial success and the Applicant's offers to settle.

The applicant, Melissa Luczon, proceeded with an uncontested trial regarding the financial aspects of her application after the respondent, Robert Lee Luczon, had his Answer and Counterclaim struck due to non-disclosure and non-compliance with court orders.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 per year to the respondent for support purposes, ordered child support and arrears, and determined his share of Section 7 extraordinary expenses.

The applicant's claim for unequal distribution of net family property was dismissed, as the court found the high threshold of unconscionability was not met, particularly given the respondent's alcoholism was cited as a cause for his conduct, and the applicant's requests involved "double dipping." The court calculated post-separation adjustments and property claims, resulting in a net payment owed by the respondent to the applicant.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a reduced basis due to her counsel's failure to comply with court directives regarding concise and properly formatted electronic filings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The parties brought urgent motions regarding an interim parenting schedule for their two-year-old daughter, MV, due to police involvement in exchanges and mutual withholding of access.

The court dismissed non-urgent issues and focused on the interim parenting plan.

The court found no consistent status quo parenting arrangement and rejected the applicant's claims of the respondent's threatening behavior and safety concerns.

The court criticized both parties for inappropriate withholding of the child, particularly the applicant for prolonged denial of access.

Applying the best interests of the child and the maximum contact principle, the court ordered a graduated increase in the respondent's parenting time, including overnights, equal sharing of exchanges, mutual right of first refusal, and specific make-up time for the respondent.

The applicant's request for a police enforcement order was denied.