Joseph Roger Richard Forget

This is a costs endorsement following motions for temporary parenting and support (brought by the father) and contempt (brought by the mother).

The father sought $5,000 in costs, while the mother requested no costs.

The court found the father to be more successful overall, particularly on the dominant issues of child residency (for one child) and child support.

The mother's motion for contempt was dismissed as ill-advised, and her conduct regarding it and her refusal to pay child support for one child was deemed unreasonable.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and considering the factors under the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the mother to pay the father $3,500 in costs.

The father brought a motion to temporarily change a parenting order and seek child support, while the mother brought a cross-motion for contempt.

The court found a material change in circumstances for the older child (A.-S., 15.5 years old), who had been living exclusively with the father and had a strained relationship with the mother.

The court ordered A.-S.'s primary residence to be with the father, with parenting time subject to A.-S.'s wishes.

The court dismissed the father's request to change the primary residence of the younger child (L.W., 9 years old), finding no compelling circumstances to alter the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The mother's contempt motion against the father was dismissed due to insufficient evidence and the court's preference for exploring alternatives to contempt.

The court ordered the mother to pay retroactive child support from August 1, 2020, and ongoing support based on the "economies of scale approach" for hybrid support cases, but denied the father's claim for special expenses for soccer due to lack of prior consent and insufficient evidence.

The applicant mother sought an order to strike the respondent father's pleadings based on his non-compliance with disclosure orders and failure to pay temporary child support.

The father had been ordered to provide comprehensive financial disclosure by July 31, 2014, but failed to do so despite multiple adjournments and cost sanctions.

He also failed to pay any amount of the temporary support order of $1,849 monthly made on November 3, 2014.

The court found the father's non-compliance to be deliberate and willful, but granted one final opportunity to comply before striking pleadings, recognizing the importance of allowing participation in family law proceedings.