H. Hunter Phillips

Following a successful motion for disclosure brought by the respondent, both parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought $5,900 on a partial indemnity basis, while the applicant sought $12,704.45, claiming divided success.

The court found the respondent was substantially successful on the motion and awarded her costs of $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the applicant's counsel's time spent was excessive.

Following a motion to change regarding child and spousal support, the applicant sought costs of $65,000 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent argued the applicant's counsel's hourly rate of $475 was excessive and should be capped at $350.

The court found the higher rate was justified due to counsel's special expertise as a certified specialist in family law.

However, considering the applicant's mixed success on some issues and redundant preparation time, the court fixed costs at $50,000 payable by the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion to change a previous support order, arguing a material change in circumstances due to a change in employment and reduction in income.

The respondent opposed, seeking to impute income to the applicant, retroactive section 7 expenses, and a finding of contempt regarding the division of household contents.

The court found a material change in circumstances and adjusted child and spousal support for 2016, 2017, and ongoing from 2018 based on the applicant's actual and projected incomes.

The court declined to impute income, finding the applicant was not intentionally underemployed.

The court also dispensed with the respondent's consent to list a jointly owned cottage for sale, dismissed the contempt motion, and declined to order security for support.

Following a trial decision, the court held a hearing to determine the retroactive spousal and child support owed by the applicant for the years 2012 to 2015.

The primary issue was calculating the parties' respective incomes, which was complicated by a family trust that allocated capital gains and interest income.

After reviewing expert accounting reports on the tax treatment of the trust distributions, the court determined the parties' incomes for each year, calculated the support payable to achieve a 60% net disposable income ratio for the respondent, and ordered the applicant to pay $68,141.63 in retroactive support arrears.

The respondent brought a motion to change a previous spousal support order, seeking increased retroactive and ongoing support due to the applicant's undisclosed severance payment and post-retirement employment income, alleging a material change in circumstances.

The applicant counterclaimed for a reduction in support, citing the respondent's remarriage.

The court found the applicant's failure to disclose severance payments and post-retirement income constituted a material change, and that severance pay was income for support purposes despite a property release clause in the separation agreement.

The respondent's remarriage was not deemed a material change.

The court ordered increased retroactive and ongoing spousal support for the respondent and dismissed the applicant's counterclaim.

The applicant moved to vary spousal support based on an amending separation agreement registered under the Family Law Act, arguing it became an order under the Divorce Act and a material change in circumstances (19% income reduction) justified a reduction.

The respondent opposed, arguing it should be treated as an initial application under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, not a variation under s. 17, as the agreement was not incorporated into a divorce order.

The court found that an agreement registered under the Family Law Act does not become an order under the Divorce Act for variation purposes and that neither party had properly brought an application under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act.

The motion was dismissed, but the parties were given 30 days to address the court on how to proceed.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage.

The husband, a high-income earner, recently negotiated a transition agreement ending his employment at the end of 2016, reducing his income.

The wife, who had been a stay-at-home mother and worked part-time as a supply teacher, sought spousal and child support based on his previous higher income.

The court accepted the husband's projected 2016 income of $433,621, imputed an income of $20,000 to the wife, and ordered child support for three children (increasing to four when the eldest returns).

Spousal support was set at 60% of the Net Disposable Income.

The court declined to order a review of support at the end of 2016 and allowed the husband to continue managing the children's trust funds.

Following a motion to vary in a family law proceeding, the court considered submissions on costs.

Both parties had made offers to settle, but neither offer was more favourable than the result obtained, rendering Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules inapplicable.

The court found that success on the motion was divided, with each party prevailing on some issues including income determinations, child residence, retroactive child support, and section 7 expenses.

The court rejected arguments that one party’s financial advantage or alleged aggressive litigation conduct justified a costs award.

In light of the mixed outcome, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

Following a family law trial concerning spousal support and equalization of net family property, the court addressed costs.

The parties disputed entitlement to costs and relied on multiple offers to settle, some of which were made on the eve of trial and therefore fell outside the cost consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that although success was divided, the respondent spouse was overall more successful on the most contentious issues, including the quantum of spousal support.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded, but full or substantial indemnity costs were declined given the complexity of the issues and partial success of the other party.

The court also declined to award pre‑judgment interest on the equalization payment.

Following a 25‑year marriage, the parties disputed spousal support quantum, child support for an adult child, ownership of a Québec cottage property, and equalization of net family property.

The court determined the separation and valuation date and addressed spousal support using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines in circumstances where the payor’s income exceeded $350,000.

Income was imputed to the recipient spouse due to limited job‑search efforts, and spousal support was fixed with a future review.

The court found unjust enrichment principles potentially supported a proprietary claim by the respondent in the cottage property but held that Ontario lacked jurisdiction to determine title to land in Québec.

A temporary stay of the equalization calculation was ordered pending resolution of the Québec ownership proceeding.

The applicant sought retroactive child support and a determination of the payor’s income for child support purposes after the payor began working in Dubai and claimed non-resident tax status in Canada.

The central issue was whether child support should be calculated using the payor’s pre-tax income, given that he paid little or no tax while residing abroad.

The court held that the payor’s minimal ties to Canada and non-payment of income tax justified calculating support based on pre-tax income under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Applying the principles in D.B.S. v. S.R.G., the court ordered retroactive child support but limited it to January 1, 2010 rather than the earlier date sought.

Arrears were ordered payable by monthly installments.

Following a motion concerning temporary child and spousal support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs of $17,283 after obtaining support orders exceeding her prior offers to settle.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs or that any award should be substantially reduced, asserting that the claimed fees were excessive and noting the applicant’s tax deductibility of legal fees.

The court found the applicant presumptively entitled to costs but declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

After adjusting the claimed amount and considering tax deductibility under the Courts of Justice Act, the court fixed costs at $14,000 and reduced them by the applicant’s marginal tax rate.

The court determined costs following a family law motion and cross‑motion concerning child and spousal support and the potential sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant was found to be the successful party, having obtained support orders and resisted the respondent’s request for sale of the home, although the respondent achieved limited success on certain expense issues.

The court considered the parties’ offers to settle and found the applicant’s offer more closely aligned with the ultimate outcome.

While the applicant sought $18,500 in costs, the court found the hourly rate and some claimed work excessive in light of the issues and the reasonable expectations of the opposing party.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 on a partial recovery, all‑inclusive basis payable within 60 days.

The applicant moved for interim child and spousal support, while the respondent moved for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court determined the applicant's income for support purposes based on her actual 2012 earnings rather than annualizing a recent six-month contract.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support for the older child for 1.5 months of the summer based on actual residency, and apportioned post-secondary expenses.

The respondent's motion to sell the matrimonial home was dismissed due to the applicant's pending constructive trust claim.