G. A. Campbell

The payor father brought a motion to change a 2012 child support order, citing a loss of employment and inability to pay.

The mother sought to impute an income of $25,000 per year.

The court found that the father had made reasonable efforts to find employment despite facing multiple impediments, including a criminal record and lack of mobility.

The court suspended periodic child support for seven months to allow the father to find employment, after which an income of $25,000 would be imputed and support obligations would resume.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding undertakings and refusals.

The court denied the motion, noting that the moving party failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure by not filing a motion record, factum, or book of authorities.

Furthermore, the court found no palpable or overriding error in the motion judge's determination of the relevant time period for document production.

The parties settled their family law dispute regarding spousal support and property on the eve of trial, leaving only the issue of costs to be determined.

The respondent sought costs based on an early offer to settle, while the applicant argued for no costs or a nominal amount due to the respondent's late disclosure of her job loss.

The court found that both parties had withheld important productions and acted unreasonably at times.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court ordered the applicant to pay $5,000 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal and child support, an advance on equalization, and the pre-trial sale of the matrimonial home and cottage.

The court ordered temporary child support of $662 per month and spousal support of $808 per month based on the parties' 2014 incomes, noting the respondent's control over the family's assets.

The respondent was ordered to roll over or cash out his remaining RRSP balance as an advance on equalization.

The court declined to order the pre-trial sale of the matrimonial home and allowed the respondent to continue his efforts to sell the cottage privately.

The applicant father brought a motion concerning jurisdiction and the habitual residence of an infant after the respondent mother unilaterally removed the child from Ontario to Newfoundland and Labrador.

The court considered s.22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and authorities addressing whether a parent can change a child’s habitual residence without the other parent’s consent.

The court rejected the respondent’s claim that the relocation had been planned and found the removal was unilateral and without consent or acquiescence.

Applying the principle that a parent cannot unilaterally alter a child’s habitual residence, the court held the child remained habitually resident in Ontario.

Jurisdiction was accepted and the respondent was ordered to return the child to Ontario pending further proceedings.

Following a lengthy family law trial involving disputes over custody and equalization, the court addressed outstanding costs issues.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful at trial and that both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct that prolonged the litigation and increased costs.

As a result, neither party was awarded costs of the trial itself.

However, the respondent was ordered to pay $8,000 relating to a specific phase of the litigation arising from earlier proceedings, reflecting responsibility for certain decisions that generated additional costs.

The amount was ordered payable by set-off against the respondent’s spousal support entitlement.

Following a successful family law appeal and motion for further evidence, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The respondent did not participate in the costs submissions, leaving the court to assess costs without information about her financial circumstances.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and relevant appellate jurisprudence, the court held that the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs but rejected a claim for full recovery or indemnity costs based on alleged bad faith.

The court declined to overturn the trial judge’s original costs order but rescinded any unpaid balance owing by the applicant due to changed parenting circumstances.

A reasonable and proportionate costs award of $12,000 plus disbursements of $4,379.96 was ordered, payable by the respondent at $300 per month.

Following extensive family litigation concerning custody and related relief, the applicant brought a motion seeking costs personally against opposing counsel and their law firm under Family Law Rule 24(9), alleging their litigation conduct unnecessarily caused costs to be incurred.

The court reviewed the lawyers’ conduct, including commencing proceedings in the wrong jurisdiction, failing to properly serve court orders, bringing urgent motions on short notice, filing repetitive affidavits, and making inaccurate representations to the court.

Applying the principles governing personal cost awards against lawyers, including the caution articulated in Young v. Young, the court concluded that the conduct of counsel and their firm unnecessarily caused costs to be incurred and warranted censure.

The court held that Family Law Rule 24(9) adequately addressed the circumstances and that the conduct constituted “fault” resulting in wasted costs.

Personal costs orders were imposed against the firm and two lawyers for amounts reflecting only the unnecessary costs directly attributable to their conduct.

Following dismissal of a motion to set aside a prior order, the successful party sought recovery of legal costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court considered the Rule 24(11) factors and the costs consequences of an unaccepted Rule 18 offer to settle.

The moving party had pursued relief despite ongoing non‑compliance with financial disclosure obligations and ignored an early settlement offer.

The court found the litigation conduct unreasonable and ordered full recovery of the costs claimed.

Seventy‑five percent of the costs were characterized as relating to child support issues and were therefore enforceable by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office under the Family Law Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

Following a motion concerning interim spousal support, child support, and a procedural motion to strike portions of an affidavit, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party succeeded on the principal issue of spousal support and had made a reasonable offer to settle that exceeded the ultimate result obtained at the hearing.

The responding party succeeded only on the procedural motion to strike.

Applying Rule 24 and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court reduced the requested costs but recognized the moving party’s substantial success and the responding party’s refusal to accept a reasonable settlement offer.

Following several complex family law motions concerning support issues, the court was required to determine the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought $45,000 plus additional preparation costs, asserting complete success and unreasonable conduct by the respondent.

The respondent argued the applicant achieved only partial success and that significant reductions to child and spousal support constituted substantial success for him.

Applying the flexible approach to costs under r. 24 of the Family Law Rules and emphasizing proportionality and reasonable expectations, the court found the applicant was mostly successful but that the amount claimed was excessive.

The court awarded $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as expenses related to support.

During family law proceedings, the responding party brought an oral motion seeking directions regarding outstanding undertakings, refusals, and questions taken under advisement arising from questioning under oath.

The court considered thirteen disputed requests for production and further questioning.

Several requests were denied where no undertaking had been given, where the documents were not in the moving party’s control, or where the request was overly broad or irrelevant to the issues in dispute.

Limited additional disclosure was ordered for certain financial documents, including bank statements and credit accounts, and in one instance the responding party was directed to request documents from a government ministry.

The court also permitted limited re‑attendance for further questioning in relation to some ordered disclosures.