Engelking

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and permission to relocate with the parties' young child to Arnprior.

The respondent father sought joint custody, increased parenting time, and relief from child support arrears due to his return to school.

The court ordered joint custody, finding the mother had unreasonably restricted the father's access.

The father was granted increased parenting time.

The court imputed income to the father for a period of voluntary unemployment but suspended ongoing child support and section 7 expenses while he remained a full-time student.

The mother's request to relocate with the child was denied as it would disrupt the child's relationship with the father.

Following a family law trial regarding the equalization of net family properties, the applicant sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the costs sought were excessive and that certain pre-trial steps should not be included.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and found the applicant beat her November 2018 offer.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs for the period prior to the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total costs award at $32,732.72.

The court determined the costs of an appeal regarding a motion to change custody and access.

The applicant/respondent on appeal sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on a written offer to settle.

The respondent/appellant argued against costs, citing delay and partial success.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful but noted the respondent achieved partial success.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $1,280.00.

The parties resolved all issues except the equalization of their net family properties, specifically the valuation of their respective federal public service pensions.

The court determined that the applicant's pension value must include all pensionable service for which she elected to repay contributions for leaves without pay.

The court also found that the applicant's survivor benefit should not be included in her net family property as it would be lost upon divorce.

For the respondent's pension, the court used age 60 as the reasonable retirement age based on his pre-separation intentions and declined to deduct a contingent survivor benefit.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $563,560.23 with pre-judgment interest.

Following a family law trial with divided success, both parties sought costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $52,218.97, while the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $11,111.11.

Both parties alleged bad faith against the other.

The court reviewed the offers to settle and the behaviour of the parties, noting that the applicant had unilaterally removed the child and the respondent had sold the matrimonial home without consent.

Given the divided success and the poor behaviour of both parties, the court made no order as to costs.

Following a successful motion for disclosure brought by the respondent, both parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $5,900 on a partial indemnity basis, while the applicant sought $12,704.45, claiming divided success.

The court found the respondent was substantially successful on the motion and awarded her costs of $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the applicant's counsel's time spent was excessive.

Following a motion for interim financial relief, the applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis, relying on an offer to settle that was less favourable to the respondent than the final order.

The respondent argued the requested amount was excessive.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

After a minor reduction in the applicant's counsel's billed hours for reasonableness, the court awarded the applicant costs of $8,654.15.

The applicant mother was entirely successful on her motion to change the children's primary residence, establish parenting time, and obtain child support.

She sought costs for the motion.

The court found that the applicant's offer to settle was more favourable to the respondent than the final order, entitling her to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

After reducing some hours that pertained to the overall application rather than the motion, the court awarded the applicant costs of $11,492.38.

The respondent brought a motion to change child support and arrears.

The applicant was the successful party on the motion, as the court fixed arrears at $25,082, which was closer to her position than the respondent's.

The applicant sought costs of $11,098.02 based on her counsel's usual rate, but the court limited recovery to the actual rate charged.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $3,815.35, noting the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support under the Family Law Act following an eight-year marriage.

The applicant was primarily a stay-at-home mother, while the respondent worked full-time and earned additional compensation through travel agencies.

The court imputed an additional $10,000 to the respondent's income for his travel agency work and ordered him to pay $1,100 per month in interim spousal support based on the parties' respective incomes and needs.