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 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 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.