Gloria Nardi-Bell

This is a costs decision arising from a custody and access appeal concerning three children.

The father's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on all four grounds.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $25,000, representing 60-70% of her actual costs.

The decision addresses the presumption of costs in favour of successful parties in family law matters, the application of the Family Law Rules cost framework, and the impact of unreasonable conduct by both parties.

The court also addressed costs related to an unsuccessful appeal to the Divisional Court, declining to award costs for that stage due to the confusing nature of family law appeal routes in Ontario.

The appellant father appealed a custody and access order from the Superior Court of Justice concerning his three sons.

The motions judge granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent mother, awarding her sole custody of two of the three children and ordering that the father's access and communication with the children be at the children's discretion.

The father challenged the appropriateness of summary judgment, the weight given to the custody assessment, the best interests analysis, and alleged Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's decision to proceed by summary judgment, his consideration of the evidence, his analysis of the children's best interests, and his costs award.

The appellant father appealed a final custody and access order to the Divisional Court.

The panel raised the issue of jurisdiction, noting that the order was made in a proceeding where both parties sought a divorce.

Under section 27 of the Children's Law Reform Act, claims for custody and access are stayed in favour of the Divorce Act when a divorce is claimed.

Because the order was made under the Divorce Act, the appeal route lies to the Court of Appeal under section 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, not the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court found the father had a meritorious appeal regarding the termination of his access and transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Annette Walters sought full recovery costs against Derek Walters following a settlement of their family law matter.

The court found Derek's conduct, including unproven allegations of fraud, relentless pursuit of irrelevant disclosure, and withdrawal of an unequal division claim shortly before trial, constituted bad faith.

Annette's offers were close to the final settlement, while Derek's offers did not trigger costs consequences.

The court awarded Annette full recovery costs, finding Derek's actions unnecessarily prolonged and complicated the litigation.

Following settlement of most family law issues, the remaining trial concerned equalization consequences arising from disputed retrospective valuations of development lands owned through the respondent's corporation at the date of marriage and date of separation.

The court heard competing appraisal evidence from three experts and made its own findings on each property, preferring different aspects of the expert analyses depending on comparables, methodology, and market context.

The court also rejected the contention that part of the matrimonial home should be excluded for business use, fixed values for the parties' wedding rings, and declined requests for indexing or security for support.

The unresolved equalization amount was left to be determined by the parties using the court's valuation findings.

Following a prior decision, the court considered submissions regarding costs.

The applicant’s reply largely reiterated earlier arguments but raised an objection to awarding costs for a settlement conference.

The court agreed that costs should not be awarded in relation to the settlement conference.

Ultimately, the court confirmed its earlier ruling that there should be no order as to costs.

Following settlement of all substantive issues in a family proceeding, the remaining dispute concerned costs related to a motion for child support.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of approximately $13,000, while the respondent sought costs of approximately $18,000, alleging the applicant had acted unreasonably.

The court found the income figure of $35,000, accepted by both parties, to be reasonable and rejected the argument that the applicant’s conduct alone caused the delay.

The judge noted that the respondent’s conduct could equally have contributed to prolonging the proceedings.

The court concluded that neither party should recover costs.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change a separation agreement.

The applicant mother sought to recover her legal costs of $29,896.76 after successfully obtaining an order requiring the respondent father to pay his proportionate share of the children's extraordinary expenses.

The mother had served a comprehensive, severable offer to settle that was more favourable to the father than the court's final order.

The father, who was self-represented, did not respond to the offer and litigated each issue unsuccessfully.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a full recovery basis, finding that she had acted reasonably and that the father's failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer and his attempt to disregard contractual obligations regarding child support warranted a substantial costs award.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations and to terminate child support for an adult child.

The court dismissed the claims to terminate or reduce spousal support.

The court also dismissed the claim to terminate child support, but recalculated the ongoing child support obligations based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines, accounting for a split custody arrangement and the adult child's post-secondary education expenses.

The court ordered proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses and set out a schedule for the payment of post-secondary costs.

The father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support and child support obligations.

He argued that the mother had alienated the children from him, constituting a material change in circumstances and unconscionable conduct.

He also sought to terminate child support for his adult son, arguing the son had unilaterally repudiated their relationship.

The court dismissed the claims to terminate spousal support and child support for the adult son, finding that both parents contributed to the family breakdown and the father failed to prove unilateral repudiation.

The court adjusted child support to reflect a split custody arrangement and the adult son's post-secondary education expenses.