Julie Layne

The applicant accepted the respondent's offer to settle parenting issues, which included a term that the applicant pay costs on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent subsequently claimed over $120,000 in costs.

The court analyzed the principles of full indemnity costs in family law, noting that reasonableness, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the paying party still apply.

The court awarded the respondent $49,000 in costs, discounting the claim due to a lack of docket detail, the inclusion of pre-litigation fees, and fees incurred after the offer was accepted.

Following the resolution of two competing motions regarding child support and access, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent was entirely successful on both motions, while the applicant had delivered an excessive amount of irrelevant and inadmissible evidence.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $34,765 to dissuade excessive and inappropriate proceedings.

Following a successful motion permitting the mother to travel internationally with the parties’ children without the father’s consent, the court addressed costs under the Family Law Rules.

The mother sought $5,573.65 in costs, while the father argued that no costs or a reduced amount should be ordered.

Applying Rule 24, the court considered the presumption that the successful party receives costs, the complexity and importance of the issues, the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, and the rates and hours claimed.

Although the matter was straightforward, it was significant to the parties and the children.

The court awarded reduced costs reflecting fairness and proportionality.