H.A. McGee

Following a family law trial concerning enforcement of a prior custody and relocation order, the parties settled mid‑trial and asked the court to determine costs.

The moving party had served earlier offers to settle that were as favourable or more favourable than the eventual settlement terms.

Applying Rules 18(14) and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that a party who achieves a result as favourable as their offer is presumptively entitled to full recovery of costs, even where the final order arises from minutes of settlement rather than adjudication.

The court found the moving party’s conduct reasonable and the opposing party’s litigation conduct unfocused and unnecessarily expansive.

Despite the responding party’s limited financial means, the court concluded entitlement to costs remained and fixed costs at $55,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

A custody and parenting dispute concerning two young children where both parents sought primary custody.

Evidence revealed significant parental conflict, instability in the mother’s home due to revolving partners and chaotic household dynamics, and the father’s ongoing emotional reactivity toward the mother.

An Office of the Children’s Lawyer clinician described the children as closely bonded but experiencing stress related to instability and adult conflict.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court concluded neither parent was presently suitable as a primary residential parent.

The court ordered a parallel parenting regime with alternating weeks, divided decision‑making authority, counselling for the children, and set‑off child support.

Following a 17-year marriage, the parties engaged in high-conflict litigation primarily driven by the mother's unreasonable expectations and alienation of the children from the father.

The court determined the date of separation and resolved outstanding financial issues, including child support, spousal support, equalization, and a trust claim.

The father was ordered to pay table child support, while the mother, who earned significantly more, was ordered to pay non-compensatory spousal support based on the Custodial Payor model of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The mother's claim for an equitable trust interest in the matrimonial home was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $25,000 to the father.

The parties sought a determination of their date of separation.

The applicant wife claimed the date was April 11, 2011, when she retained counsel, while the respondent husband claimed it was May 28, 2008, following a physical altercation.

The parties continued to live under the same roof, file joint tax returns, and maintain joint finances until 2011.

The court found that the husband's proposed date was not supported by the evidence, as neither party acted as though the marriage had ended or made plans as separated persons.

The court accepted the wife's proposed date of April 11, 2011, as the correct date of separation.

The applicant father sought joint custody and expanded access to the parties' two children, while the respondent mother sought sole custody.

The father, who had not worked since 2009 and exhibited intense anger and a disordered mental state during the trial, demonstrated no ability to communicate cooperatively with the mother.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and maintained the father's supervised access on alternate weekends.

Claims for child support and equalization were adjourned due to the parties' failure to file proper financial statements.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought a default hearing to enforce child and spousal support arrears of over $292,000 against the respondent payor.

The payor argued he lacked the ability to pay and sought to encumber a property held in his deceased parents' estate, of which he was the sole executor and beneficiary.

The court found the payor failed to provide full and frank disclosure, thereby failing to rebut the statutory presumption of ability to pay under s. 41(9) of the FRSAEA.

The court ordered the arrears secured against the property, permitted the payor to list it for sale, and ordered ongoing monthly payments of $1,250 under threat of incarceration.