3 total
The court fixed spousal support at $1,400 per month, clarifying that Net Disposable Income calculations are tools rather than strict targets.
The court issued supplementary reasons to its trial decision, addressing unresolved calculations for spousal support and costs.
The applicant sought to reduce spousal support based on changes in child care arrangements and the respondent's increased investment income, arguing for a re-evaluation of Net Disposable Income (NDI).
The court clarified that NDI calculations are a tool, not a fixed target, and that the goal is roughly equivalent living standards.
Spousal support was fixed at $1,400 per month, a figure at the lower end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines given the change in parenting.
The court also provided directions for finalizing the judgment and resolving costs.
Costs of $8,000 awarded to successful father on school attendance motion, payable after final order.
The applicant father sought costs following a successful motion regarding the children's school attendance.
He claimed costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to an offer to settle.
The respondent mother argued against a costs award, citing her limited financial means and reasonable behaviour.
The court found the applicant's docketed hours excessive but acknowledged his entitlement to costs based on his successful offer to settle.
Considering the mother's limited means and the principle of proportionality, the court fixed costs at $8,000, payable within 60 days of a final order in the ongoing family law proceedings.
The court ordered no costs on a motion to change support due to divided success and mutual unreasonable litigation conduct.
The court considered costs following a motion to change regarding child and spousal support and share transfer.
The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing success and the Respondent's bad faith regarding income imputation.
The Respondent disputed success, citing the Applicant's disclosure delays and unreasonable income positions.
The court found divided success, noting both parties' unreasonableness in litigation conduct, including the Applicant's delayed disclosure and misstated income, and the Respondent's late amendment of her income position.
Neither party achieved a more favourable outcome than their offers to settle.
Consequently, the court ordered no costs.
