Hamza Talpur

The moving party father brought a motion to change his spousal and child support obligations due to a reduction in his income.

After establishing the new support amounts, it was determined the father had overpaid support by over $63,000.

The father sought to pay the remaining spousal support as a lump sum, which the responding party mother opposed.

The court declined to order a lump sum payment due to the many future variables affecting both parties' incomes.

The court also determined the termination date for child support, ordered the release of funds held in court as security, and incorporated the parties' agreement regarding section 7 university expenses.

Costs of $23,500 were awarded to the father.

The applicant and respondent disputed their date of separation for the purpose of determining the valuation date under the Family Law Act.

The applicant argued they separated in 2005 when he moved into a self-contained unit within the matrimonial home, while the respondent argued they separated in 2012 when he moved to a different city.

The court applied the Oswell indicia for parties living under the same roof and found that the parties continued to present as a couple, share finances, and interact as a family until 2012.

The court determined the date of separation was April 19, 2012.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a default judgment granting a divorce and corollary relief, alleging the applicant fraudulently induced him not to file an answer.

The applicant cross-moved to dismiss the motion and sought to introduce secretly recorded telephone conversations to rebut the fraud allegation.

The court admitted the recordings, finding their probative value outweighed the policy against such evidence in family law.

Applying the test for setting aside a default judgment, the court found no fraud but concluded the respondent had an arguable case regarding access and that justice required a full hearing on support and property issues.

The default judgment was set aside.

Following a trial and costs endorsement in a family law matter, the applicant submitted that the court made calculation errors regarding Net Family Property and support arrears.

The respondent's counsel also requested that the final order be signed immediately.

The court dismissed the applicant's challenges to the Net Family Property and most of the arrears calculations, finding no errors, but requested further submissions on one alleged payment of $3,858.

The court also directed the respondent to serve the request for the order on the applicant and provided a timeline for the applicant to raise any concerns before the order is signed.

Following a five-day family law trial where the respondent was entirely successful, both parties sought costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $38,551.38, relying on a settlement offer that was significantly more favourable to the applicant than the trial judgment.

The court found that while the offer expired one day before trial and did not trigger the strict consequences of Rule 18(14), it remained a significant factor under Rule 24.

The court awarded the respondent $30,000 in costs, approaching full indemnity, after deducting fees for senior counsel's passive attendance at trial.