Jodi R. Fleishman

The applicant sought costs of $22,689.79 on a partial indemnity basis following a successful motion where primary residence and decision-making authority were transferred to him.

The respondent argued against a costs award, citing her financial circumstances and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and that the respondent's litigation conduct was unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant $19,500 in costs, including costs for the urgency determination and case conferences pursuant to Rules 17(18.1) and 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.

However, payment was stayed until the respondent obtains employment or her financial claims are determined.

The applicant father sought sole custody and permission to move the parties' three-year-old son to Spain.

At trial, he conceded primary residence to the respondent mother but sought joint decision-making and unsupervised access.

The court dismissed the father's claims for joint custody, finding he had made false, salacious allegations against the mother and posed a flight risk.

The mother was granted sole custody and primary residence in Ottawa.

The father was granted supervised access in Ottawa and ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income of $48,000.

A restraining order was also issued against the father.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate child support for his adult daughter, who has severe developmental disabilities, and to terminate his contribution to section 7 expenses.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing the daughter remained a child of the marriage and that table support was appropriate despite her receipt of ODSP benefits.

The court found the daughter was a child of the marriage and, after conducting a means and needs analysis, concluded the presumptive table amount was appropriate.

The court dismissed the father's requests to terminate section 7 expenses and to vary access, increased his monthly arrears repayment rate, and ordered him to pay costs for a previously withdrawn motion.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking $100,000 in security for costs against the applicant father, who resides in Spain and is seeking sole or joint custody of their child.

The father brought a cross-motion for unsupervised access.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs, finding that while the father resides outside Ontario, his custody claim has merit and is not a nuisance.

The court also denied the father's request for unsupervised access due to outstanding criminal charges and flight risk concerns, instead ordering supervised access.

The applicant brought a motion to change a final order for spousal support following his retirement from the Ontario Provincial Police.

The court found that the applicant's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances that was not foreseen in the original order.

Applying the rule against double dipping, the court limited the applicant's income for support purposes to the non-equalized portion of his pension.

The court also imputed income to the respondent based on her ability to generate income from equalized assets.

Spousal support was reduced to $1,050 per month and a fixed termination date was set for October 31, 2021.