Jesse Schmidt

Following a successful motion for primary residence of the parties' children, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $13,882.05 based on an offer to settle and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court found the offer to settle was not severable and therefore did not attract full recovery costs under Rule 18.

While the respondent exhibited some unreasonable behaviour, it did not amount to bad faith.

Considering the respondent's impecuniosity and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the applicant partial recovery costs fixed at $5,000, payable in monthly installments.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary primary residence of the parties' two children and to change their school, contrary to a recent separation agreement that granted primary residence to the respondent mother.

The mother had suffered ongoing health issues and hospitalizations, leading the father to withhold the children.

The court applied the Hearn analysis to the separation agreement under the Divorce Act, finding that the agreement did not reflect the children's best interests at the time of execution due to the mother's health-related instability.

The court granted the father's motion, ordering the children to reside primarily with him and attend his proposed school.

The respondent in a high-conflict family law proceeding brought a motion seeking the sale of the matrimonial home, carriage of the sale, exclusive possession, and financial disclosure.

The applicant sought an adjournment, which the court denied.

The court declined to order the immediate sale of the home or vary the existing exclusive possession order so close to trial, provided the applicant complies with a proposal to pay $20,000 monthly towards outstanding costs and $12,350 monthly for support and arrears.

The court also ordered the applicant to comply with outstanding financial disclosure requests.