Glenna McClelland

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 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.