Heather A. McGee

The self-represented moving party sought costs of $26,312.38 following a motion where he successfully reduced his child support obligations but failed to reduce spousal support.

He argued for substantial indemnity based on an offer to settle.

The court found the offer was not severable and he achieved only partial success.

The court awarded him a partial recovery of $4,520, noting that a self-represented litigant cannot claim costs for their time at a lawyer's hourly rate.

The father brought a motion to change the school of the parties' two younger daughters, appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and order payment of section 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no compelling circumstances to change the children's school prior to a final determination of custody, especially given the father's failure to engage in a recommended treatment plan for parental alienation.

The court also declined to appoint the Children's Lawyer, noting it could exacerbate the conflict and amplify the father's voice through the children.

The respondent filed a 14B motion but failed to serve it on the applicant, attempting a fraud on the court.

The motion was dismissed, and the applicant sought costs of $9,491.10.

The court found the applicant's costs request excessive but awarded $2,500 plus HST ($2,825 total) to fully compensate the applicant and admonish the respondent for his wrongful conduct.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary order for child and spousal support, arguing his income had significantly decreased since the 2016 valuation of $1,549,000 used in the original order.

The court reviewed competing expert valuations of his 2017 and 2018 income, which involved complex corporate structures and capital dividends.

The court determined the father's 2018 income for support purposes was approximately $750,000.

Consequently, the court reduced the table child support to $9,277 per month but declined to reduce the spousal support of $15,000 per month, finding it remained appropriate under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Following a lengthy family law trial where the applicant father was overwhelmingly successful, he sought costs of $1.1 million.

The court found the respondent mother's litigation conduct unreasonable, particularly regarding parenting and income issues, and noted she failed to beat the applicant's offers to settle.

The court awarded the applicant $750,000 in costs on a partial recovery basis.

The court declined the applicant's request to characterize the costs as support to protect them from bankruptcy, finding that costs awarded to a support payor do not fall within the definition of a support order under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The respondent brought a second motion to change his child support obligations and eliminate arrears from a 2006 final order, arguing a material change in circumstances.

The court found no sufficient material change to justify varying the original imputed income.

However, the court enforced the terms of the parties' 2008 Minutes of Settlement, which had never been formalized into an order, fixing arrears to nil as of June 30, 2008, and establishing new child support amounts based on the Minutes.

The applicant's claim for proportionate sharing of post-secondary education expenses was bifurcated due to insufficient evidence and procedural fairness concerns regarding the 2008 Minutes.

The Applicant, Maria Vittoria Costa, brought a motion seeking child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support from the Respondent, Alexander (Sandro) Costa, following their separation after a 24-year marriage.

The court ordered Mr. Costa to pay child support arrears and ongoing table child support based on an imputed income of $180,097.

Additionally, Mr. Costa was ordered to pay his proportionate share of section 7 expenses for the adult children.

While the court found Ms. Costa had an entitlement to spousal support, it declined to make an order for spousal support for the period from September 2018 onwards, noting her Net Disposable Income was already higher than Mr. Costa's after other support payments.

Spousal support for earlier periods was deferred for further determination at trial or by subsequent motion due to insufficient financial information.

The Applicant, Xiaojun Jiang, and Respondent, Yurong Zeng, brought amended motions and cross-motions concerning their matrimonial home and other financial matters.

The Applicant sought the immediate sale of the matrimonial home at 41 Cathedral High Street, dispensing with the Respondent's consent, and payment of proceeds into court.

The Respondent sought exclusive possession of the same property, a change in access, interim disbursements, and a restraining order.

The court dismissed the Respondent's requests for exclusive possession, change in access, interim disbursements, and a restraining order, finding he could not afford the property and there were no grounds for a restraining order.

The court granted the Applicant's request for the sale of 41 Cathedral High Street, finding it necessary due to financial hardship and that the sale would not defeat any meritorious claims.

The Respondent's spousal consent to the listing and listing terms was dispensed with, with proceeds to be held in trust pending further court order.

The respondent father brought a Motion to Change seeking to adjust the equalization payment ordered after a 2013 trial, relying on alleged fresh evidence regarding shareholder loans.

The court dismissed the motion to adjust the equalization payment, finding no jurisdiction to vary a property order under a Motion to Change or section 17 of the Divorce Act.

The court also found the proposed evidence was not fresh under Rule 25.19.

The father was ordered to provide comprehensive financial disclosure before proceeding with his claims to change child and spousal support, and was ordered to pay costs due to unreasonable litigation conduct.

The applicant brought a motion to change spousal support terms set out in a separation agreement, seeking to terminate support based on a material change in circumstances.

Within this proceeding, the applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to retain an expert to value her self-employment income and to provide extensive financial disclosure dating back to 2016.

The court dismissed the request for an expert valuation, finding it disproportionate given the respondent's modest income compared to the applicant's.

The court partially granted the disclosure request, limiting the timeframe to August 2017 to December 2018, balancing the need for a full case with the prohibition against fishing expeditions.

This decision addresses a costs application following two motions in a family law dispute.

The applicant father sought over $117,000 in costs after successfully obtaining orders to prevent the respondent mother from unilaterally changing the children's residence and securing temporary joint custody and increased parenting time.

The court found the mother acted in bad faith by breaching a consent order and deceiving the father about the move.

Despite this finding, the court significantly reduced the requested costs to $24,500 in fees and $2,500 in disbursements, plus HST, emphasizing the principles of reasonableness and proportionality in family law costs awards, and noting the applicant's bill of costs included irrelevant or overlapping charges.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support and a family law restraining order against the respondent father.

The respondent had deliberately failed to provide court-ordered financial disclosure for four years, complicating the assessment of his income.

The court preferred the applicant's expert's preliminary assessment of the respondent's income at $890,000 for 2018, rejecting the respondent's lower self-reported figures.

Consequently, the court ordered temporary monthly table child support of $13,502 and spousal support of $12,800 (low range of SSAG), both retroactive to January 1, 2018.

The parties' proportionate shares for section 7 expenses were set at 75% for the respondent and 25% for the applicant.

A family law restraining order was also issued against the respondent, mirroring prior probation terms, due to the applicant's legitimate fear for her safety, supported by the respondent's history of violence and subsequent breaches of orders involving a second spouse.

The co-respondents, Louis Montello and Las Princesas Corp., brought a motion under Rule 25(19)(d) of the Family Law Rules to set aside specific paragraphs of a final order obtained by Monique Abitbol without notice.

The impugned paragraphs disentitled Montello and Las Princesas from further participation and declared them to be holding the "Golden Beach" property in trust for Alberto Benarroch.

Applying the factors from Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen, the court found that while there was no compelling excuse for the co-respondents' default in filing an Answer, they had an arguable defense on the merits.

The court determined that allowing the ex-parte declaratory relief to stand would cause disproportionate prejudice to the co-respondents and undermine the integrity of justice.

The motion was granted, setting aside the contested paragraphs, with terms including payment of prior costs and an expedited timetable for the proceeding.

The applicant, Dr. Lazare, sought partial costs of $48,450 following a spousal support review.

The respondent, Ms. Heitner, argued for no costs, citing divided success, her April 3, 2018 Offer to Settle, and her financial means.

The court found Dr. Lazare largely successful on the dominant issues at trial, including income determination, child support, section 7 expenses, and the denial of Ms. Heitner's claim for indefinite spousal support, despite not achieving his preferred spousal support termination date.

Ms. Heitner's single, non-severable offer to settle, made late in the litigation, and her overall litigation conduct were deemed unreasonable.

The court awarded Dr. Lazare $35,000 plus HST in costs, reflecting a partial recovery due to the divided success on the spousal support termination date and other factors.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate spousal support and adjust child support to reflect a shared parenting arrangement.

The respondent mother sought to continue full table child support and significantly increase spousal support with no termination date.

The court found the mother was intentionally under-employed and imputed her income at $78,000.

The court ordered a set-off of child support under section 9 of the Guidelines and ordered spousal support to continue at the current quantum until August 31, 2021, at which time it will terminate.

In a bifurcated family law trial, the court determined issues of spousal support entitlement, income for support purposes, and a claim for a resulting trust over a property.

The court found the wife had an ongoing entitlement to spousal support.

The husband's income was imputed to include $30,000 annually in housing and other benefits provided by his wealthy father.

Finally, the court held that a property purchased by the father and placed in the names of the husband and wife was a gratuitous transfer.

The wife failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust, and the property was declared to be held in trust for the father.

Following a difficult family law trial involving unfounded allegations of child abuse by the mother, the successful father sought full recovery of his trial costs of $163,244.

The court reviewed multiple offers to settle and found the father's offers regarding custody and access attracted full recovery under Rule 18(14), while his financial offers demonstrated reasonable litigation conduct under Rule 24(5).

The court rejected the mother's argument of divided success and her claim of inability to pay, noting her unreasonable litigation conduct and escalation of claims.

The father was awarded $118,000 in costs.

The respondent mother moved to set aside a temporary order for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home and support, relying on Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules.

She alleged that the applicant father had committed fraud by failing to fully disclose his income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the father knowingly or recklessly made false statements with wrongful intent, noting that temporary orders are based on evolving evidence and a different finding on a fuller record does not constitute fraud.

Following urgent motions regarding a child's school placement, the successful respondent father sought costs.

The court found the applicant mother's litigation conduct, which included filing voluminous and disproportionate materials, to be unreasonable.

The father had also made offers to settle that were as favourable or more favourable than the motion's outcome.

The court awarded the father costs approaching full recovery, reduced slightly for his counsel's role in scheduling missteps, fixing the award at $22,500.

The applicant father sought joint custody and increased access to his daughter, G., who had never had an overnight visit in six years.

The respondent mother opposed, alleging sexual abuse by the father and seeking sole custody and supervised access.

The court conducted a 14-day trial, finding the mother's allegations of sexual abuse to be false and her evidence unreliable.

The court characterized the mother's actions as extreme gatekeeping, driven by a desire to control access and marginalize the father.

The court granted joint custody, with primary residence remaining with the mother, and established a detailed, stepped-up parenting schedule for the father.

Child support was also determined, with the father's income imputed and arrears fixed.