G.D. McLeod

The court determined costs following a seven-day family law trial concerning custody, parenting, and child support.

The Mother was found to be substantially successful at trial and acted reasonably, making multiple settlement offers.

The Father made only one offer, close to trial, and was unsuccessful on his main claims.

The Mother was awarded $45,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The Father's request for costs related to a resolved medical records motion was denied, as there was no compelling reason to award costs for a settled matter.

Of the total costs, $4,500 (10%) was deemed enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, reflecting the proportion of time spent on child support issues.

The Applicant sought joint custody and a 50/50 parenting schedule, with no child support.

The Respondent sought sole custody and primary residence, with guideline child support.

The court found that the parties were unable to communicate effectively for the children's best interests, citing the Applicant's anger issues, substance abuse, and controlling behaviour.

The court granted the Respondent sole custody and maintained the existing parenting schedule, which did not meet the 40% threshold for shared custody.

The Applicant was ordered to pay guideline child support of $650 per month and a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses.

In a family law trial, the court addressed outstanding issues including the calculation of the equalization payment, entitlement to child tax benefits, and costs.

The applicant argued that the respondent's valuation-day debt should be reduced based on hindsight evidence of a post-separation consumer proposal.

The court rejected this argument, holding that hindsight evidence cannot be used to alter the actual value of a debt at the date of separation.

The court also found the respondent was the primary caregiver for the first year post-separation and entitled to full child tax benefits for that period.

The respondent was highly successful on the property issues and was awarded costs of $30,000 plus HST.

Following a settlement conference in a family law proceeding concerning custody and relocation of three children, the court was required to determine costs for that step in the litigation.

The parties ultimately resolved the substantive issues through Minutes of Settlement permitting the children to relocate to the father's care in British Columbia, including arrangements for ongoing medical treatment for one child.

The court found that the mother had acted unreasonably by pursuing delay tactics despite recommendations from the children's counsel and medical professionals supporting relocation.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering proportionality and reasonableness, the court ordered substantial costs against the mother for the preparation and attendance relating to the settlement conference and motions.

Payment of the costs was deferred until the parties’ property equalization or trial.