Grant Gold

Following a lengthy motion concerning interim child support, spousal support, and interim costs in a high‑income family law dispute, both parties sought costs.

The court assessed success in light of the motion result and competing offers to settle under the Family Law Rules.

Although the applicant obtained retroactive interim child support, the respondent was found to have been more successful overall because the ordered support was lower than his offer and the applicant’s claims for interim spousal support and interim costs were dismissed.

The court considered proportionality, counsel rates, time spent, and the financial circumstances of the parties.

Exercising its discretion under the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the applicant to pay partial costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought interim child support of $50,000 per month, interim spousal support of $50,000 per month, and interim costs in litigation against a high‑income professional athlete earning approximately $12 million USD annually.

The court considered the Child Support Guidelines and jurisprudence on high‑income payors, including the presumption of table support and discretion under s. 4 where income exceeds $150,000.

The applicant’s proposed budget included a substantial monthly savings component intended to fund future housing and long‑term financial security for the child.

The court held that on an interim basis the respondent’s proposal of $28,000 per month adequately covered the child’s current expenses pending trial, while the issues of savings and discretionary spending should be fully examined at trial.

The court found the evidence regarding cohabitation and permanence of the relationship highly conflicting and declined to order interim spousal support, and also declined interim litigation funding due to insufficient evidence of current legal debt.

The applicant brought a motion seeking substantial interim child support, retroactive child support, spousal support, and interim costs arising from a relationship that produced a child.

The respondent acknowledged paternity but disputed that the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act and sought an adjournment to permit questioning regarding the applicant’s claimed budget and the nature of the relationship.

The court granted the adjournment but imposed financial terms.

It ordered interim child support of $25,000 per month retroactive to the commencement of the claim and continuing until further order or year‑end.

The court rejected both the applicant’s request for $50,000 per month and the respondent’s proposed $15,000 per month as inappropriate in the circumstances.