3 total
Successful party awarded $35,000 costs after mixed‑issue family trial.
Following an 11‑day family law trial concerning parenting arrangements, child support, equalization, and related financial claims, the court addressed costs.
The court applied the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules that the successful party is entitled to costs and assessed the parties’ success across each issue.
The applicant was found to be the more successful party overall, particularly on custody, decision‑making authority, primary residence of the child, and equalization, while the respondent was more successful on child support.
Allegations of bad faith were rejected, though both parties were found to have behaved somewhat unreasonably in aspects of the litigation.
Considering offers to settle and the factors under Rule 24(11), the court ordered the respondent to pay partial recovery costs.
Joint custody with parallel parenting ordered in high-conflict separation; father's malicious prosecution claim dismissed.
The parties separated after a short marriage characterized by conflict.
The applicant mother sought sole custody of their four-year-old daughter, while the respondent father sought joint custody and equal parenting time.
The father also claimed damages for malicious prosecution, alleging the mother made false assault allegations leading to criminal charges that were later withdrawn.
The court ordered joint custody with a parallel parenting regime, finding it in the child's best interests to foster a relationship with both parents despite their communication difficulties.
The court implemented a shared parenting schedule but declined to order a 50/50 split.
The father's claims for malicious prosecution and unequal division of net family property were dismissed.
The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment and set-off child support.
Custody variation denied; access expanded but support obligations largely unchanged.
The moving party father brought a motion to change prior custody, access, and support orders, seeking joint custody, increased parenting time, termination of spousal support as of a prior review date, and a reduction in child support based on alleged decreased income.
The court held that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances required to vary custody under the governing legal test.
Sole custody with the mother remained in place, though access was expanded to provide the father with additional parenting time and shared holidays.
The court also determined there was no material change justifying reduction of the father's imputed income or child support obligations, and confirmed that spousal support properly continued until the youngest child attended school full‑time.
Arrears were maintained and the Family Responsibility Office was directed to calculate the outstanding amount.
