Jack Pantalone

Following a motion for interim financial relief, the applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis, relying on an offer to settle that was less favourable to the respondent than the final order.

The respondent argued the requested amount was excessive.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

After a minor reduction in the applicant's counsel's billed hours for reasonableness, the court awarded the applicant costs of $8,654.15.

Following the death of the children's mother, the maternal grandparents commenced proceedings against the children's biological father and step-father for custody, child support, and various property claims.

The parties settled all substantive issues but could not agree on costs.

The court determined it had jurisdiction to award costs despite the settlement because there was a sufficient evidentiary record.

The court found the applicants were successful on the support issues but unsuccessful on the property claims against the step-father, and awarded the applicants costs of $6,000 against the biological father and $10,200 against the step-father.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory family law decision concerning child support and the calculation of parenting time under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court found procedural deficiencies, including that the motion for leave to appeal was brought outside the time permitted under the Rules of Civil Procedure without a request for an extension and that no formal order had been taken out from the underlying decision.

The court emphasized that appellate jurisdiction arises only once an order is signed and entered, and that reasons alone cannot be appealed.

Given the absence of a formal order and uncertainty regarding the precise terms of the motion judge’s decision, the court postponed determination of the leave motion pending settlement and entry of the order.

Following a prior endorsement denying a request for temporary relief from guideline child support based on hardship, the responding party's counsel advised the court of an error in the judge’s reference to the responding party’s 2013 income tax liability.

The corrected amount was substantially higher than previously stated.

The court considered whether the error justified revisiting the earlier refusal of hardship relief.

The judge concluded that the corrected tax liability did not alter the analysis and declined to revisit the denial of the hardship claim.

The applicant brought a motion seeking retroactive and ongoing child support following separation and the breakdown of a shared parenting arrangement for three children.

The respondent opposed retroactive support and brought a cross‑motion seeking relief from any child support obligation based on undue hardship due to disability‑related expenses, and sought leave to amend pleadings.

The court declined to order retroactive support on a temporary motion, finding factual and financial disputes better suited to negotiation or trial.

The court also rejected the respondent’s undue hardship claim, finding his income substantial and insufficient evidence to meet the high threshold under s. 10 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent was ordered to pay guideline support if parenting time fell below 40%, with set‑off under s. 9 applicable if parenting time exceeded that threshold; leave to amend pleadings was granted.

The parties were unable to agree on a parenting time schedule and each submitted a proposed schedule to the court.

The court preferred the applicant’s proposed schedule and ordered that it form the basis of the parenting arrangement, subject to a modification addressing professional development days occurring before the respondent’s parenting weekends.

The order directed that such professional development days and the preceding Thursday overnight be added to the respondent’s parenting time, extending his time from Wednesday at 4 p.m. until the following Monday morning.

Both parties sought costs and submitted bills of costs.

The court found the outcome reflected mixed success and declined to award costs.