Fernando Pietramala

Following a child support hearing which the respondent father failed to attend, the applicant mother sought costs of $10,757.50.

The mother had made an offer to settle that was more favourable to the father than the trial result, entitling her to costs consequences under subrule 24(12).

The court found the mother acted reasonably while the father acted unreasonably by breaching financial disclosure orders and failing to attend trial.

The court awarded the mother costs of $9,500, payable in monthly installments of $500.

This is a costs endorsement following a focused trial on child support obligations.

The applicant (mother) sought full recovery costs, arguing she was the successful party and the respondent (father) had acted unreasonably by failing to provide timely financial disclosure and not making a settlement offer.

The court found the mother was the much more successful party, but her offer to settle did not meet the threshold for full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The father's conduct was deemed unreasonable, though not bad faith.

The court fixed the mother's costs at $3,600, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by the father in monthly installments.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support from September 2017 and imputation of the respondent father's income, along with contributions to the child's piano expenses.

The father sought support from November 2020 based on a lower income and argued against the piano expenses.

The court found the mother gave effective notice for retroactive support in June 2017, setting the presumptive start date to September 2017.

The court imputed the father's income for various years, finding his self-reported income unreliable and his financial disclosure inadequate and blameworthy.

The court also found the piano expenses to be eligible extraordinary expenses.

Child support arrears were fixed, and a payment schedule was ordered.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial of motions to change a final custody and child support order.

The applicant mother sought costs of $25,917.65 after obtaining sole custody of the three-year-old child and modified parenting arrangements for the respondent father.

The respondent father sought costs of $1,455.16 for an adjournment motion.

The court found the mother was the more successful party and entitled to costs, but reduced the award to account for her unreasonable conduct in denying parenting time without court intervention and serving an offer to settle only one day before trial.

The court awarded costs of $13,805 payable over four years at $290 per month, and dismissed the father's costs claims.

The applicant mother brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent father brought a cross-motion for temporary child support.

The respondent opposed the sale, seeking to purchase the applicant's interest, but failed to provide proof of financing or complete financial disclosure.

The court ordered the applicant to pay temporary child support of $475 per month and granted the applicant sole authority to list and sell the matrimonial home, finding no oppressive conduct or prejudice to the respondent's Family Law Act claims.

This was a motion to change custody and access orders brought by both parents.

The original order from July 2018 provided for joint custody of a young child, with the mother as primary caregiver and the father having limited parenting time.

The father sought increased overnight and holiday parenting time.

The mother sought sole custody and supervised access, citing concerns about the father's conduct.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including deteriorating parental communication, police and Children's Aid involvement, the father's reckless driving with the child while his licence was suspended, and an assault charge arising from a violent incident at a church.

The court changed the order to grant sole custody to the mother and ordered graduated supervised parenting time for the father, with specific conditions addressing safety concerns.

The parties' motions concerned child support, daycare expenses, and the removal of belongings following their separation.

The applicant mother sought interim child support and daycare contributions retroactive to the application date.

The respondent father sought to dismiss the application, reduce child support due to alleged undue hardship from supporting his adult children, and have costs owed to him paid directly rather than credited against arrears.

The court dismissed the father's motions, finding no undue hardship, and ordered child support based on his 2017 income.

The court also ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of daycare expenses and directed that the costs owed by the mother be applied as a credit against the father's child support and daycare arrears, prioritizing the children's financial needs.

Orders were also made regarding the removal of the father's belongings and increased access to the youngest child.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent's lawyer brought a motion to be removed from the record and to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as the respondent's Litigation Guardian.

The respondent suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and repeatedly refused to take medication, communicate with his lawyer, or attend court.

Despite a recent hospital discharge and a doctor's letter suggesting he was capable while medicated, the court found the respondent incapable of instructing counsel over the course of the proceeding.

The court appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as the respondent's Litigation Guardian.