Jason Isenberg

Following a motion to change where the parties had divided success on parenting and child support issues, both parties sought costs.

The court reviewed the parties' respective offers to settle under Rule 18 and found that neither party achieved a result as favourable or more favourable than their offers.

Given the divided success and the factors under Rule 24, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The respondent brought a motion seeking partition and sale of the matrimonial home and interim spousal support.

The applicant opposed both requests, arguing malicious/vexatious conduct regarding the sale and lack of entitlement for spousal support.

The court granted the partition and sale, finding no malicious or oppressive conduct by the respondent and no prejudice to the applicant's Family Law Act rights.

The court also granted interim spousal support, determining a prima facie non-compensatory entitlement based on the long marriage and the respondent's economic need and limited work history.

This was a final hearing on a Motion to Change the parenting and child support provisions of a 2017 Final Order.

The Applicant Mother sought changes to decision-making and primary residence, alleging parental alienation, while the Respondent Father sought child support.

The court determined that the provincial Children’s Law Reform Act and Family Law Act applied, not the Divorce Act, as no divorce had been granted.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the Mother's relocation and the child's increased resistance to contact, justifying changes to parenting time.

Parenting time was made subject to the child's wishes, and the Mother was made solely responsible for transportation.

Retroactive child support was ordered from July 1, 2020, the date of formal notice, dismissing earlier claims due to lack of effective notice and the Father's non-disclosure of income.

The Mother was ordered to contribute to specific s.7 expenses and maintain life insurance.

The applicant sought to vary a 2015 final order concerning parenting time, holiday sharing, decision-making for extracurricular activities, and child support.

The respondent also sought changes to parenting and holiday schedules.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's age and increased parental conflict.

A new week-about parenting schedule was ordered with a specific carve-out for the applicant, and a comprehensive holiday schedule largely proposed by the respondent was adopted.

The applicant was granted final decision-making authority for extracurricular activities, with limitations, and the respondent was ordered to contribute to past and future special expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding income disparity, ordering prospective set-off child support from the respondent, but denied retroactive child support, considering the D.B.S. factors and the initial income parity.

This case addresses the valuation of a husband's pension and the method of equalization payment following a second separation after a reconciliation.

The primary issue was whether a 2002 separation agreement, which included a specific release of the wife's interest in the husband's pension, remained effective despite a subsequent reconciliation and a clause stating the agreement would become void after 90 days of cohabitation for reconciliation.

The court found that the specific release of the pension interest survived the reconciliation, limiting the wife's claim to the pension's increase in value from the date of reconciliation to the final separation.

The court also ordered the equalization payment to be made in cash rather than a pension rollover, considering the wife's financial needs and the husband's liquidity.

Following a bifurcated family law trial determining dates of cohabitation and separation, the court addressed costs for the first stage of the proceeding.

The applicant was successful in establishing the valuation date and separation date, and had served an offer to settle that closely matched the court’s findings on the primary issue.

Although the offer did not strictly meet the criteria for mandatory full indemnity costs under the Family Law Rules, it was considered in assessing quantum.

The court found the respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct, including denying that separation had occurred, failing to make any settlement offer, and filing improper post‑trial materials.

Costs of $19,000 were awarded to the applicant but enforcement was stayed pending the final outcome of the litigation.

In a bifurcated trial, the court determined the dates of cohabitation and separation for a short marriage where the parties continued to live under the same roof.

The applicant husband claimed separation occurred in May 2008, while the respondent wife denied they had ever separated.

The court found cohabitation commenced on July 1, 2005, when the respondent moved her clothing into the home, and separation occurred on October 15, 2009, when the applicant delivered an unequivocal letter from his lawyer stating his intention to separate.

The court also granted the applicant's request to sever the divorce from the corollary relief.

Following a seven‑day family law trial addressing equalization, spousal support, child support, section 7 expenses, and custody, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Success at trial was mixed; however, the applicant achieved greater overall success, including on equalization and entitlement to ongoing spousal support and retroactive child support.

The court also considered the respondent’s conduct, including advancing irrelevant evidence that extended the length of the trial, though acknowledging the challenges faced by a self‑represented litigant.

Balancing the mixed results and the factors under Rule 24(11), the court awarded partial costs to the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay $8,500 in costs as support.