2 total
The court made no order as to costs, balancing the respondent's non-disclosure against the applicant's unrealistic expectations.
The Applicant sought costs following a motion for child support, while the Respondent also sought costs.
The court considered the parties' offers to settle, their behaviour, and the Family Law Rules.
The Applicant's offer was less favourable than the final order, and her expectations were deemed unrealistic.
The Respondent's offer was closer to the final order but did not meet formal requirements.
The Respondent was found to have breached a prior divorce order by failing to provide financial disclosure, leading to the Applicant incurring legal costs.
Considering both parties' conduct, the court made no order as to costs.
The court imputed corporate income to the father and ordered retroactive child support from the date of effective notice.
The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive and ongoing child support, and a sharing of special and extraordinary expenses.
The court determined the father's income for support purposes by adding back capital cost allowance for real property and unreasonably deducted home-use expenses.
Retroactive child support was ordered from 2009, based on the date formal notice was provided, rather than 2007 as sought by the mother or 2010 as offered by the father.
Ongoing child support was set based on an imputed annual income of $100,000.
The parties were ordered to share section 7 expenses proportionally, but specific post-secondary expense orders were deferred due to a lack of evidence.
The father's failure to provide timely financial disclosure was noted as blameworthy conduct.
