H. Geertsma

The applicant sought costs following her successful motion to confirm a prior parenting order and a subsequent request for directions.

The court found that the respondent's inappropriate conduct, including failing to return the children as ordered and denying the existence of the order, necessitated the proceedings.

The applicant was largely successful on the motions and entirely successful on the request for directions.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $7,296.69 on a partial indemnity basis for the motions and $800 on a substantial indemnity basis for the request for directions, totaling $8,096.69.

The applicant brought a motion to change a child support order.

The issues included whether the adult child was in full-time attendance at an educational institution while taking online courses, the calculation of the respondent's income based on rental property deductions, and the allocation of section 7 expenses.

The court found the child remained entitled to support during the online studies, imputed income to the respondent by disallowing certain rental property deductions, fixed arrears at $10,573.18, and ordered the respondent to pay 74% of the parents' share of section 7 expenses.

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.

Both parties operated cash-based businesses and failed to declare significant income to the CRA.

The court imputed incomes to both parties for the purpose of calculating child and spousal support, rejecting the husband's expert report due to his failure to disclose the cash business.

The court also determined the value of various contested assets and date of marriage deductions for the equalization of net family property, finding the husband's uncorroborated evidence unreliable.