Judith Nicoll

Following a family law trial with divided success on parenting and financial issues, both parties sought costs.

The applicant sought $250,000, while the respondent argued for no costs or $50,000 in the alternative.

The court reviewed the principles of costs in family law, including the impact of divided success, reasonable behaviour, and offers to settle.

Finding that neither party enjoyed a monopoly on success, neither beat their offers, and neither had a monopoly on reasonable conduct, the court ordered that no costs be payable by either party.

The parties, a high-income banker and a part-time physician, engaged in a high-conflict family law trial primarily concerning parenting time with their two teenage daughters, spousal support, and the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The mother alleged family violence and coercive control, while the father alleged parental alienation.

The court found neither extreme applied but noted the mother's diffidence in supporting the father's relationship with the children.

Respecting the children's ages and wishes, the court ordered daytime parenting time for the younger child but did not force the older child to participate.

The court imputed a full-time income of $550,000 to the mother but ordered the father to pay $20,000 per month in spousal support for 12.5 years, alongside $24,661 in monthly child support.

The mother's request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was dismissed, and partition and sale were ordered.

Following a motion where the father successfully obtained joint custody and equal parenting time, he sought costs of $74,862 on a full indemnity basis.

The mother argued for divided success and claimed the father's fees were disproportionate.

The court found the father was entirely successful, beat his offer to settle, and that the mother had acted unreasonably by attempting to engineer a status quo in her favour.

While noting the father's legal fees were somewhat excessive compared to the mother's, the court recognized his success was largely due to the extensive evidence he marshalled.

The court awarded the father costs of $60,878 on a full indemnity basis.

Following a motion with divided success regarding an adjournment and changes to a parenting regime, both parties sought costs.

The court found that neither party could be characterized as the successful party, as both had mixed successes and failures.

The court declined to apportion costs on an issue-by-issue basis, noting it would be inefficient and inappropriate given the interdependent sub-issues.

Finding no bad faith and that neither party beat their settlement offers, the court ordered no costs payable by either party.