Gil David Rumstein

This costs decision followed a nine-day trial primarily concerning the parenting of a 13-year-old child.

The applicant mother was deemed the successful party, having been granted sole custody and discretion over the respondent father's parenting time.

The court assessed the applicant's offers to settle, finding her September 2, 2019, and September 25, 2019, offers to be more favourable to the respondent than the trial outcome, thereby entitling her to full costs from September 2, 2019, and partial indemnity costs for an earlier period.

The court declined to award costs for certain professional fees and a travel disbursement.

The respondent father was ultimately ordered to pay the applicant mother an all-inclusive amount of $50,000 in costs for the proceeding.

The court rendered a decision on costs following a trial primarily concerning parenting, child support, and post-separation adjustments.

While property matters were settled pre-trial, the parties achieved mixed success on parenting issues.

The applicant mother was more successful on financial issues, but her position on retroactive child support was not fully accepted.

The court considered the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the father's late financial disclosure and lack of engagement in narrowing issues.

The mother was awarded $10,000 in all-inclusive costs, to be set off against an equalization payment.

This decision addresses the costs of a contempt motion where the respondent was found not in contempt regarding the designation of an irrevocable trustee for child support life insurance.

The respondent, as the successful party, sought full recovery costs.

The court considered the respondent's unreasonable delay in providing crucial information from the insurer and the applicant's persistence with the motion despite receiving that information.

Ultimately, the court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs, reducing the requested amount due to his delay and the excessive nature of his legal fees, while also acknowledging the applicant's continued pursuit of the motion.

The applicant brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the respondent for failing to irrevocably designate her as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy in trust for their children, as required by a previous court order.

The court found that the respondent was not in contempt, as the order explicitly made the designation conditional on whether it was allowed by the insurer, and the insurer did not permit an irrevocable trustee designation.

The motion was dismissed.

The father sought immediate reinstatement of access to his 12-year-old son and therapeutic orders compelling the family to engage in counselling.

The mother opposed mandatory counselling and argued access was detrimental.

The court found jurisdiction to make therapeutic orders, concluding they were not "treatment" under the Health Care Consent Act requiring consent, as they posed little to no risk of harm and were aimed at improving family relationships.

The court temporarily suspended the father's access, ordered individual and joint counselling for both parents and the child, and mandated judicial oversight, emphasizing that an integrated therapeutic intervention was essential for the child's best interests and to rebuild the father-son relationship.

The child was to remain in the mother's primary care.

The respondent sought to vary a spousal support order due to the applicant's increased income, as per a material change clause in their minutes of settlement.

The court first addressed a jurisdictional issue arising from the parties remaining legally married despite a final support order, deeming the order to be under the Family Law Act.

On the merits, the court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's income increase of over $20,000.

The court increased spousal support by $500 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2015, from $3,817 to $4,317, emphasizing that variation is not a de novo review and that support was primarily needs-based.

A costs endorsement following an eight-day family law trial in which the respondent husband was successful on essentially all issues and had previously made a settlement offer more favourable than the ultimate result.

The husband sought $42,500 in costs.

The court reduced certain amounts related to settlement conferences and considered the applicant’s financial circumstances, including ongoing responsibility for the matrimonial home, support of the parties’ university‑attending child, and spousal support obligations due to the respondent’s illness.

Balancing these factors, the court fixed costs in favour of the respondent at a reduced amount payable from the applicant’s share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a prior family law order concerning child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court adjusted child support in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines based on the father's updated income and ordered payment of limited arrears.

Claims that the father had defaulted on university-related section 7 expenses were largely rejected because the existing order required contributions only after deducting scholarships, employment income, and other resources, which had covered the child’s university costs.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the recipient spouse’s cohabitation with a new partner and resulting financial improvement.

Spousal support was reduced but not terminated, and the father was ordered to pay certain spousal support arrears and maintain required life insurance.

Following the breakdown of a 16‑year marriage, the court addressed property division, child support, and spousal support.

The applicant sought unequal division of the matrimonial home and enforcement of several written agreements purporting to allocate the property to her.

The court held the agreements unenforceable due to lack of independent legal advice, uncertainty, and non‑compliance with statutory requirements, and found that equalization would not be unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The respondent established entitlement to spousal support primarily on a needs basis due to a serious psychiatric condition limiting employability.

The court ordered ongoing and retroactive spousal support, modest retroactive child support, and equal division of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary an earlier order seeking retroactive child support, a repayment schedule for arrears, and contribution to s. 7 extraordinary expenses for the parties’ children.

Applying the principles in S.(D.B.) v. G.(S.R.), the court considered the delay in seeking increased support, the payor’s conduct, the circumstances of the children, and potential hardship.

The court found the delay reasonable and concluded the payor had engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose increased income and by not adhering to disclosure obligations under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Retroactive child support was ordered for three years prior to the application.

The court also limited annual s. 7 expenses for extracurricular activities and set a payment schedule for arrears.