Gil David Rumstein

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his spousal support obligation following his involuntary termination from employment.

The respondent sought a retroactive increase for 2018 and ongoing support based on imputed income.

The court found a material change in circumstances but declined to retroactively increase support for 2018, as the respondent's needs were being met.

For 2019, support was reduced based on the applicant's actual income.

The court refused to terminate support for 2020 onwards, instead imputing an income of $40,000 to the applicant given his ongoing obligation and capacity to work in lower-paying jobs.

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.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and primary residence of the parties' two children, while the respondent father sought joint custody and equal time-sharing.

The court found that the parties' high conflict and inability to communicate made joint custody unworkable.

The mother was granted sole decision-making authority, with the father retaining authority over dental care and specific sports.

The children were ordered to reside primarily with the mother during the school year, with equal time-sharing during summer and holidays.

The court also determined the parties' incomes for child support purposes, disallowing the mother's rental losses and adding back most of the father's business expenses, and ordered retroactive adjustments for child support, section 7 expenses, and post-separation family expenses.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated in 2017.

The father sought custody and access to their 13-year-old son, while the mother sought sole custody and an order that the child not be forced to have contact with his father against his will.

The court found that the father had been emotionally and verbally abusive to both the mother and the child, leading to the child's severe estrangement and refusal to see his father.

Despite numerous attempts at reunification therapy and court-ordered access, the child's mental health deteriorated.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and ordered that any access be at her sole discretion, taking into account the child's wishes.

The father was granted decision-making authority solely regarding the child's interest in a property in Sri Lanka.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the resumption of access with his 12-year-old son, which had been temporarily suspended by a prior order pending therapeutic services.

The child exhibited severe trauma and strongly opposed contact with the father.

The court dismissed the motion for interim supervised access, finding it could cause significant emotional distress and undermine the ongoing reunification therapy process, but ordered increased frequency of the child's counselling sessions.

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 applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2010 child support order, seeking to establish the current amount of child support for an adult child attending university away from home, and to calculate retroactive support.

The respondent father argued that the child should contribute to her own expenses and that RESP funds should reduce his obligation.

The court found that the RESP was funded solely by the applicant and did not reduce the respondent's share.

The court ordered the respondent to pay his proportionate share (61%) of the child's post-secondary expenses, fixed at $1,220 per month, plus a reduced pro-rated table amount of $390 per month for the months the child lives at home.

The court also ordered retroactive support from January 2014, the date of effective notice, rather than 2012 as requested by the applicant.

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.

Following a four‑day family law trial concerning equalization of net family property and the sale of the matrimonial home, the successful party sought costs.

The court found that the applicant had clearly succeeded on the primary issue of equalization and had obtained the same equalization payment previously offered to settle.

The respondent had not advanced a clear or realistic settlement proposal and pursued a lengthy trial over a relatively modest amount.

Although the applicant achieved only partial success regarding the precise terms governing the sale of the matrimonial home, the court held that the overall result aligned more closely with the applicant’s position.

Costs were therefore awarded to the applicant in the amount claimed.

Following a family law motion involving parenting issues, the applicant sought costs of $3,710 on a partial indemnity basis, representing approximately 60 percent of legal fees incurred.

The respondents argued that the motion result was mixed because the applicant sought supervised access for the father with the younger child, which the court did not order.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs along with factors such as the reasonableness of the parties’ behaviour and the divided success on the motion.

The court concluded that the success on the motion was shared.

As a result, no costs were awarded.

The court determined interim child and spousal support pending trial in a family law proceeding.

The parties’ children resided with the respondent in the matrimonial home while the applicant paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance after separation.

The court held that these payments, exceeding the Child Support Guidelines amount, satisfied the applicant’s interim child support obligation.

The court also ordered interim spousal support of $1,250 per month, imputing income to the respondent based on her skills and education despite claims of disability.

The interim order was intended to remain in effect until trial, subject to variation if the trial did not proceed as scheduled.

The respondent mother opposed enforcement of Minutes of Settlement that granted the father unsupervised weekend access to a young child.

The father sought a court order enforcing the agreement, arguing the mother had to establish a material change in circumstances.

The court held that where custody and access terms arise from an agreement not incorporated into a court order, the proper framework is the child’s best interests rather than a material change analysis.

Considering concerns about the father’s alleged drug involvement, lack of recent contact with the child, and safety issues, the court found the agreement was not presently in the child’s best interests.

The court granted the mother custody and ordered the father to have supervised access pending further investigation.

The parties separated after a 41-year marriage.

The respondent sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, arguing that the applicant recklessly depleted assets through a failed business venture and undisclosed debt refinancing.

The court dismissed the claim for unequal division, finding that the applicant's business decisions, while poor, were not made in bad faith or with the intention to deplete assets.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the agreed equalization payment of $34,301.09, reimbursed the applicant for certain carrying costs, and set the terms for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to dispense with a biological father’s consent to a step-parent adoption under s. 138 of the Child and Family Services Act, the successful respondent sought costs.

The court confirmed the presumptive entitlement of the successful party to costs under the Family Law Rules and the discretionary authority under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

While the respondent claimed over $25,000 in legal fees, the court found the matter was narrow and not complex and reduced the recoverable amount after considering duplication of work caused by a change of counsel, excessive docketing practices, and clerical tasks billed as legal work.

The court also considered the unsuccessful applicant’s limited financial means and the need to avoid negative financial impact on the child.

Costs of $3,400 inclusive of disbursements and tax were awarded, payable in monthly installments.

The applicant step-father sought an order dispensing with the biological father's consent to the adoption of a four-year-old child.

The biological father had been absent from the child's life since birth due to living in Morocco, but had paid child support and recently sought access upon returning to Canada.

The court found that dispensing with consent was not in the child's best interests, as the biological father had shown a commitment to the child and there was no evidence he posed a harm or negative influence.

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.