Henry C.R. Krol

Following competing family law motions addressing temporary child support, parenting schedule, and claims for special or extraordinary expenses, the court was asked to determine costs.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $15,000, while the respondent argued for no costs or a modest award.

The court found success on the motions was divided: the applicant succeeded in maintaining the residential schedule and obtaining temporary child support based on imputed income, but failed on claims for intentional underemployment and s. 7 expenses, and obtained only partial retroactive support.

Considering the Family Law Rules, including Rules 24 and 18, and the parties’ settlement offers, the court concluded the applicant achieved only modestly greater success.

Costs were therefore fixed in a modest amount.

The applicant sought temporary child support and contribution to section 7 expenses, while the respondent sought parenting-related relief including a 50/50 parenting schedule.

The court considered whether income should be imputed to the respondent, who reported no current income while serving as CEO of a biotechnology company without salary.

Applying s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court determined that despite the absence of reported income, the respondent maintained a high standard of living and income should therefore be imputed based on his expenses.

Income was imputed at $123,000 annually and guideline child support was ordered accordingly.

The court declined to order contribution to section 7 expenses due to insufficient evidence and maintained the existing parenting schedule pending further discussion at a settlement conference.