Filomena Andrade

Following a bifurcated trial regarding the validity of a cohabitation agreement, the successful respondent sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for divided success and raised her inability to pay.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful but rejected the claim for elevated costs.

Applying principles of proportionality and considering the applicant's precarious financial circumstances, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $18,885.80 and reduced them by 50%, ordering the applicant to pay $9,000.

The applicant sought to set aside a cohabitation agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, arguing the respondent failed to disclose significant assets and that she did not understand the agreement's nature or consequences.

The court found the applicant had sufficient general knowledge of the respondent's assets and understood that the agreement protected his property and waived spousal support.

The court declined to set aside the agreement and further held that its terms successfully ousted the equalization provisions of the Family Law Act by substituting a division based on legal ownership.

The maternal grandparents applied for custody of their 9-year-old granddaughter following the death of the child's mother.

The father, who had access under a previous court order, also sought custody.

The court found that the child had lived primarily with her maternal grandparents and had a strong attachment to them, and that moving her would cause further trauma.

The court also noted the father's history of alcohol abuse and the high level of conflict between the parties.

Sole custody was awarded to the maternal grandparents, with a specified access schedule for the father, subject to a prohibition on alcohol consumption during access.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive child support.

Following an urgent family law motion regarding increased access to a four‑year‑old child, the court determined the costs consequences of the motion.

The moving party had obtained temporary expanded access pending a case conference and was therefore the successful party under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court emphasized the principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations in assessing costs.

The amount claimed was found excessive given the temporary and non‑dispositive nature of the order and because the claim improperly included case conference costs.

The court fixed costs of the urgent motion at a reduced amount.