Marc Smith

Following a successful motion to impute income, the applicant sought costs of $5,198 on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent did not file responding materials but had previously rejected offers to settle.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

Considering the applicant's offers to settle and the respondent's failure to engage in settlement discussions, the court awarded partial indemnity costs at the higher range, fixed at $3,600.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue and register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against three properties owned by the defendant, who was the common-law spouse of the plaintiff's deceased father.

The plaintiff challenged the validity of his father's holographic will, alleging lack of capacity and undue influence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff's evidence weak and concluding there was no triable issue regarding the properties.

Furthermore, the court held that the equities did not favour granting a CPL, as an existing non-dissipation order provided adequate security and damages would be a suitable alternative remedy.

In an addendum to a previous endorsement, the court addressed a factual inaccuracy raised by the respondent father regarding a refused access visit.

The court clarified that while the applicant mother did refuse the access, she did so because the father was agitated, and maintained its conclusion that the father was less inclined to encourage regular access.

The court also ordered the father to vacate the matrimonial home within 14 days and amended the parenting exchange schedule to align with school hours to minimize conflict.

The applicant mother brought an interim motion seeking primary care of the parties' two children, specific parenting time for the respondent father, and to purchase the father's interest in the matrimonial home.

The parties had been living together in the matrimonial home post-separation, resulting in significant conflict.

The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver and that the father's aggressive conduct in front of the children was concerning.

The court granted the mother primary care and final decision-making authority, established a parenting schedule for the father, and ordered that the mother purchase the father's interest in the matrimonial home within 90 days.

Following a successful motion regarding the child's school enrollment, the applicant mother sought costs of $8,603.97.

The respondent father argued the amount was excessive and suggested $1,500, citing duplication of work due to the mother changing lawyers and a prior agreement limiting costs to the school issue.

The court found the mother's request reasonable, noting she had already reduced her claim by $3,000 to account for duplication and the agreement.

The court awarded the mother costs of $8,603.97.

The applicant mother brought a motion to impute the respondent father's income for the purposes of child and spousal support, arguing he failed to provide financial disclosure as required by their separation agreement.

The father, a self-employed real estate agent, opposed the motion and sought to impute income to the mother for a period when she was studying nursing.

The court imputed the father's income at $230,000 due to his failure to disclose and lack of evidence regarding business expenses.

The court declined to impute income to the mother for 2019, finding her decision not to work part-time while studying and caring for three children was reasonable, but imputed her income at $40,000 going forward on consent.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary order regarding custody, child support, and spousal support.

He sought to change the primary residence of one child to himself, reduce his imputed income of $100,000 based on new financial disclosure, and increase the applicant mother's imputed income.

The court granted the change in primary residence but deferred the effective date to trial.

The court dismissed the motions to vary the imputed incomes, finding the father's new financial disclosure contradictory and lacking credibility, and the mother's income accurately reflected her circumstances.