Ian James Howard Brown

This decision addresses the costs of previous motions concerning child access and financial disclosure.

The applicant, Mr. Leybourne, sought increased access to his daughter and financial disclosure, while the respondent, Ms. Powell, sought to restrict his access.

The court found Mr. Leybourne's offer to settle more favourable than the outcome and deemed Ms. Powell's conduct unreasonable for bringing an urgent motion and making unsubstantiated allegations.

Consequently, Mr. Leybourne was awarded costs on a full recovery basis.

This endorsement concerns the costs of an application where Leslie Kuenzig sought a retroactive adjustment of child support from Wade Topp.

The court had previously awarded retroactive support from November 2011, rather than the 2001 date sought by Kuenzig, and ordered Topp to pay $68,588.98 in arrears.

Kuenzig sought $7,000 in costs, arguing that pro bono work should not preclude a reasonable award.

Topp contended that each party should bear their own costs due to mixed success, or that he should receive costs for the long motion.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court found Kuenzig primarily successful despite not achieving the full retroactive period requested.

The court fixed Kuenzig's costs at $7,000, payable by Topp within thirty days, and deemed the award enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant spouse brought an urgent motion before a case conference seeking interim spousal support, interim child support, and an $8,000 advance on a potential equalization payment.

The respondent agreed to pay guideline child support but disputed the quantum of spousal support and opposed the advance.

The court held that while the applicant had prima facie entitlement to interim spousal support under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, the respondent’s financial obligations—including payment of substantial joint family debt and higher accommodation expenses—significantly reduced his ability to pay.

The court determined that strict adherence to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines is not mandatory on interim motions and must be balanced against the parties’ means and needs.

Interim spousal support was set at $700 per month and the request for an advance on equalization was refused.

Following a family law trial where the self-represented wife was largely successful, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The husband had gone into personal bankruptcy shortly after the formal judgment was taken out.

The court awarded the wife $7,500 for the five-day trial, $6,000 for pre-trial preparation, and $825 in disbursements, noting her professional handling of the case and the husband's failure to provide timely disclosure.

Divorce trial addressing child support for an adult disabled child receiving ODSP benefits, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and post‑separation financial adjustments.

The payor argued that ODSP benefits should eliminate or reduce child support and proposed contributing to an RDSP instead.

The court rejected that position, holding that ODSP benefits do not displace the presumptive child support obligation under the Federal Child Support Guidelines for a disabled adult child who remains a “child of the marriage.” The court imputed part‑time income to the caregiving spouse and fixed mid‑range spousal support after considering the child support obligation and the parties’ respective incomes.

Equalization and multiple post‑separation adjustments were determined, including reimbursement relating to a breach‑of‑trust judgment, company‑paid personal expenses, and other financial adjustments.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after a short relationship, with the mother maintaining primary care of their young son.

The mother sought sole custody, while the father sought joint custody.

The court found that the parties had a high-conflict relationship characterized by poor communication, largely driven by the father's rigid and uncooperative behaviour.

Applying the principles from Kaplanis, the court concluded that joint custody was unworkable and awarded sole custody to the mother to ensure stability and effective decision-making for the child.