Howard Staats

The applicant and respondent separated in 2015 and sought a divorce, parenting orders, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the respondent engaged in a campaign of parental alienation, repeatedly breaching court orders and undermining the applicant's relationship with the children.

The applicant was granted decision-making responsibility and a parenting schedule, while the respondent was found in contempt of court.

No retroactive or ongoing Guideline child support was ordered, but the parties were ordered to share special expenses equally.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $62,250.

The father brought a motion to change child support, and the mother responded with claims for section 7 expenses and summer child support for their adult child in university.

The court refused to impute rental income to the mother, finding she netted no income from the property.

The court ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of the younger child's gymnastics expenses, rejecting his claim of impecuniosity due to his frequent vacations.

The court also ordered the father to pay table child support during the summer months when the adult child resides with the mother, finding the usual approach inappropriate for the school year but applicable during the summer break.

A property owner sued purchasers for breach of an alleged agreement permitting the return of chattels after the sale of reserve land and buildings.

The court interpreted the written land and chattels agreement and found that ownership of all chattels transferred to the purchasers once the down payment was made.

An alleged later amendment involving waiver of mortgage interest was found unenforceable because the parties lacked consensus ad idem.

The court further found the vendor engaged in a prolonged campaign of harassment, intimidation, and attempts to evict the purchasers after the sale.

General and punitive damages were awarded to the defendants for harassment and mental distress.

Following a motion addressing temporary custody and access, child support, and spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The responding party to the underlying motion sought costs on either a full recovery or partial indemnity basis, asserting success on the major issues including custody and the imputation of income for support purposes.

Applying Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the responding party was the successful party, though not to the full extent claimed.

The court declined to award full recovery costs because the requirements under Rule 18(14) were not satisfied.

Exercising discretion, the court reduced the claimed hours and awarded a partial indemnity costs amount reflecting what a losing party would reasonably expect to pay.