Glenna G. McClelland

The Applicant sought costs after the Respondent accepted her Offer to Settle, which included an equalization payment and payment for line of credit debt.

The court considered the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, particularly the Respondent's failure to make reasonable offers and his reliance on unsubstantiated allegations in costs submissions.

The court awarded the Applicant costs fixed at $33,000, plus $1,627 for reply submissions, finding this to be slightly more than 75% of full recovery costs, justified by the Respondent's conduct and the late settlement.

Ms. Cassidy, the successful party in a family law trial, sought costs of $124,511.88.

The court awarded her $75,622.72, representing 65% of her counsel's costs, payable within four months.

The court found both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct, with Mr. Cassidy's actions constituting bad faith due to unreasonable interpretation of orders and refusal to provide disclosure, while Ms. Cassidy unreasonably declined settlement discussions.

The court also denied Ms. Cassidy costs for her self-represented period due to insufficient evidence of opportunity cost.

The respondent, Anne Cassidy, brought a motion to change final orders regarding child and spousal support, s. 7 expenses, and income disclosure.

The applicant, Robert Cassidy, sought to dismiss the motion and terminate spousal and child support.

The court found a material change in circumstances, upheld Ms. Cassidy's entitlement to compensatory spousal support despite her remarriage, ordered Mr. Cassidy to contribute to post-secondary expenses for two children, adjusted ongoing child and spousal support, and awarded retroactive arrears for child support, spousal support, and s. 7 expenses.

The court also modified the income disclosure order and passport possession.

The respondent, Maria Preciosa Ramos Doforno Sutton, brought a motion for interim spousal support and further financial disclosure from the applicant, Ronald John Sutton, following a 35-year marriage and separation in 2010.

The court found Ms. Sutton entitled to compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support due to her contributions to the marriage, economic disadvantage, and current health issues preventing self-sufficiency.

Mr. Sutton's arguments regarding Ms. Sutton's modest lifestyle in Portugal and the inadmissibility of an internet article on cost of living were rejected.

The court ordered Mr. Sutton to pay interim spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and to provide extensive financial disclosure regarding his assets, debts, and business interests.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, and for an order requiring the respondent father to consent to counselling for their child.

The father brought motions regarding primary residence and OCL involvement, which were adjourned.

The court ordered the father to consent to the child's counselling at a specific agency.

For child support, the court applied a set-off calculation based on the parties' current incomes, resulting in the father paying $43 per month, and capped section 7 expenses at $1,000 per child annually.

The claim for interim spousal support was dismissed without prejudice to the trial judge, as there was insufficient evidence regarding compensatory claims or need.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure.

The respondent and his counsel failed to appear at the motion.

The court found that the respondent had made no efforts to comply with his disclosure obligations, which had been ordered over a year and a half prior.

Applying the test from Chiaramonte, the court concluded that these were exceptional circumstances where no other remedy would suffice, and granted the motion to strike the pleadings with costs.

In a family law motion concerning child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support, the court addressed competing motions to vary support and determine arrears following a lengthy separation and prior temporary orders.

The parties agreed that all support arrears prior to December 2010 should be rescinded pursuant to a reconciliation agreement.

The court fixed post‑2011 child support arrears and section 7 expense arrears in the amounts claimed by the recipient spouse and ordered ongoing guideline child support based on an imputed income to the payor of $96,000 beginning in 2015.

The court found entitlement to spousal support based on need, but reduced the amount sought and ordered limited retroactive support together with ongoing support calculated under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Annual financial disclosure and adjustments to support were also ordered.

Following a lengthy family law trial addressing custody, access, and support, the successful parent sought costs of approximately $47,000 after obtaining a shared parenting regime through joint custody.

The moving party relied on multiple offers to settle under the Family Law Rules and argued entitlement to full recovery of costs from the dates of the offers.

The court confirmed the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and found the claimed legal fees, hourly rates, and disbursements reasonable.

However, exercising discretion under the Family Law Rules, the court reduced the requested amount due to the responding party’s financial circumstances, the parties’ income disparity, and the need to avoid exacerbating conflict in a newly established shared parenting regime.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $30,000 and permitted set-off against the equalization payment but declined to permit set-off against child support arrears.

The applicant father sought joint custody and a shared parenting regime, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and to maintain the status quo access arrangement.

The court found that despite some conflict, the parents could communicate effectively and put the children's interests first.

Joint custody and a week-about shared parenting schedule were ordered.

The court also ordered ongoing child and spousal support, finding the mother was not intentionally underemployed, but denied her claim for retroactive spousal support.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment in a family law proceeding concerning child support and related relief after the respondent failed to file responding materials or appear.

The court considered the requirements for summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and reviewed affidavit evidence regarding the respondent’s sporadic contact with the children, his employment history, and ongoing failure to provide financial disclosure or consistent support payments.

Evidence demonstrated significant arrears and difficulty enforcing existing support orders through the Family Responsibility Office due to the respondent’s changing employment and lack of disclosure.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment with minor modifications to the proposed order, including deletion of one paragraph and an award of fixed costs.

Following settlement of a family law motion to change concerning termination of child and spousal support, the remaining issue before the court was costs.

The applicant sought over $42,000 in costs arising from the respondent’s unsuccessful attempt to terminate support and related proceedings.

The court reviewed the parties’ conduct, the settlement outcome, and multiple offers to settle in accordance with s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24(5) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the applicant’s position was not unreasonable and rejected a claim relating to income tax penalties as outside the scope of a costs determination.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in a reduced amount.

Following a family law trial addressing outstanding issues after partial settlement, the court determined disputes regarding section 7 expenses, RESP funds, and ongoing child support for adult children pursuing post‑secondary education.

The court held that a motor vehicle for a university student did not qualify as a reasonable special or extraordinary expense given the parents’ limited means.

RESP funds were ordered released for the tuition of the children currently attending post‑secondary institutions, with future withdrawals subject to agreement or court order.

The court confirmed that adult children attending post‑secondary education may remain entitled to child support and ordered guideline support and shared responsibility for university expenses after accounting for the child’s contribution and RESP funds.

The parties brought competing family law motions concerning custody, access, child support, and related financial issues.

The court held that most issues raised by the parties could not be fairly determined on conflicting affidavit evidence and ordered that the outstanding matters proceed to trial pursuant to Rule 14(7) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s best interests due to the involvement and evidence of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and expanded the father’s weekday access to include an overnight visit.

Restrictions on corporal punishment were removed and the alcohol condition was modified to prohibit consumption during parenting time.

Income was not imputed to either party for support purposes and most support issues were deferred to trial.

The applicant brought a motion to change a divorce judgment that required payment of a global indexed amount covering both child and spousal support.

The motion sought termination of support for an independent adult child, adjustment of ongoing child support for the remaining child, termination of spousal support based on remarriage, and elimination of arrears.

The court found material changes in circumstances but declined to terminate spousal support, holding that the original agreement contemplated indefinite support indexed for inflation.

Retroactive adjustments were assessed using the principles from D.B.S. v. S.R.G., and the court declined to impose large retroactive child support or spousal support obligations due to delay, lack of misconduct, and the payor’s reliance on the existing order.

The court fixed arrears of spousal and child support at zero, set ongoing indexed spousal support, and established a structured regime for child support and post-secondary education expenses.

The parties sought directions regarding the sale of the matrimonial home, division of household contents, and disclosure obligations following earlier court orders.

The court found both parties had failed to comply with the prior order requiring cooperation in appointing a real estate valuator and arranging sale of the property.

The court set a structured listing price reduction schedule for the matrimonial home and provided detailed directions regarding preparation and sale.

It also clarified the treatment of inherited or gifted property under the Family Law Act, confirming that inherited property does not become family property through use, while gifts may require evidence of intent.

The court ordered further disclosure of financial records and established a process for dividing or auctioning disputed household contents.