Joel B. Kerr

The respondent sought costs following a successful motion for increased time-sharing with the parties' child.

The respondent claimed full recovery costs of $10,470 based on his success, reasonable conduct, and two offers to settle that triggered the costs consequences of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant opposed a significant costs award, citing her limited financial means as a student and expectant mother.

The court found the respondent was entitled to costs, noting his reasonable settlement efforts contrasted with the applicant's unreasonable litigation conduct.

While the respondent's offer to settle presumptively entitled him to full recovery costs for a portion of the proceeding, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the quantum due to the applicant's financial hardship.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $8,437, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following separation after a long traditional marriage with three children, the court resolved outstanding issues of spousal support, retroactive child support, and health benefit coverage after the parties settled parenting and certain financial issues.

The court imputed income of $25,000 to the applicant due to insufficient evidence of efforts to obtain employment despite capacity as a bookkeeper.

Arrears of child and spousal support were calculated based on agreed incomes and DivorceMate calculations.

The court also addressed the respondent’s unilateral removal of the applicant from his employment medical and dental plan during litigation.

Conditional orders were made requiring reinstatement to the benefit plan if possible, or alternatively payment of lump sum spousal support for dental treatment.

Following a long-term marriage, the applicant sought retroactive and time-limited spousal support despite a waiver contained in minutes of settlement.

The court applied the Miglin framework to determine whether the settlement agreement should be overridden.

It found no flaw in the negotiation process and concluded the waiver of retroactive spousal support substantially complied with the objectives of the Divorce Act.

However, the agreement preserved a limited right to claim spousal support if the respondent earned more than a specified income threshold.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered a lump-sum payment for the preserved support period without any child support offset due to insufficient evidence.