John Daniel Connon

This is a costs endorsement following a motion by Mr. Khan for increased access to the children, on which he was substantially successful.

Both parties sought costs.

Ms. Khan sought $16,941.36, and Mr. Khan sought $22,363.63.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and Rule 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, noting Mr. Khan's substantial success on the underlying motion and Ms. Khan's inflexibility regarding access.

Despite questioning the time spent by Mr. Khan's counsel given the issues' simplicity, the court fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive, to be paid by Ms. Khan to Mr. Khan within 90 days.

This costs endorsement followed a motion where the applicants' initial application was converted to an action, which they subsequently did not pursue.

The respondents sought costs for the motion.

The court determined that the applicants were not public interest litigants, as their claims were personal and pecuniary.

Consequently, the applicants were ordered to pay partial costs to the various respondents, reflecting the respondents' ultimate success in concluding the litigation, albeit not on the exact grounds initially pleaded.

This is a costs ruling in a family law matter involving a motion to change and a motion to strike pleadings.

The respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $44,321.62.

The court found that the applicant acted in bad faith through deliberate concealment of financial disclosure, misrepresentation of income, and obstructive litigation conduct spanning over two years.

The court awarded costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $34,889.50, payable immediately and enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as child support.

The responding parent brought a motion to change seeking child support, disclosure of the moving parent’s new spouse’s income, and contribution to a child’s academic preparation camp.

The court held that the prior order’s two‑year review clause did not automatically entitle the responding parent to child support and that a material change in circumstances had not occurred prior to February 2013.

The court also held that a new spouse’s income is not relevant to child support calculations absent a claim of undue hardship and refused the disclosure request.

After one child began residing primarily with the responding parent in February 2013, guideline support and a shared‑custody set‑off analysis under s. 9 of the Child Support Guidelines was applied.

Child support of $411 per month was ordered from February 1, 2013 and the moving parent was required to contribute to the camp expense.