Justice L.J. Klein

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to vary child support.

The respondent sought to reduce his child support obligations based on a claimed reduction in annual income.

The court found that the respondent had not met the threshold for variation as set out in paragraph 6.4 of the Amended Separation Agreement, which required a drastic change in either parent's income.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $3,000, payable at $250 per month commencing August 1, 2012, with the entire amount becoming immediately due if the respondent defaulted on any support or costs payment by more than 30 days.

This is a costs decision following a trial on spousal support eligibility and quantum.

The applicant sought costs for two phases of proceedings: the original trial (2008-2009) and a subsequent trial before the judge (2012).

The applicant claimed total costs of $32,925.28 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent, self-represented, opposed the costs award and submitted alternative proposals.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, but reduced the amount to $12,000.00 to reflect the applicant's contribution to the complexity and length of the proceedings through her tailoring of evidence in prior unrelated proceedings and her role in an ex parte order made in the respondent's absence.

Costs were ordered to be paid by periodic bi-weekly payments of $175.00, enforceable as an incident of support.

The father brought a motion to change custody of his son from the mother and sought child support following a change of custody.

The mother had relocated to Nova Scotia with the child in 2007 without the father's consent and remained there for five years, during which the father had minimal contact with the child.

The father initially pursued criminal charges of child abduction rather than family court proceedings.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was in Nova Scotia and declined to exercise jurisdiction, dismissing the father's motion to change custody.

The court found the mother's conduct in violating court orders to be outrageous but determined that Nova Scotia was the more appropriate forum given the child's connections to that province.

The respondent father sought to vary a child support order based on a claimed decrease in his annual income from self-employment as a real estate broker.

The original separation agreement contained a threshold clause requiring a "drastic change" in either parent's income as the sole basis for variation.

The court found that the respondent failed to meet the threshold test and dismissed the motion.

The court held that the respondent, as a self-employed person, bore the onus of clearly demonstrating the basis of his net income through comprehensive documentation, which he failed to do.

The court was skeptical of the respondent's reported income reduction given the potential for income allocation among related individuals in the real estate business.

The applicant sought spousal support from the respondent, claiming they had cohabited as common law spouses for at least three years.

The respondent disputed the claim, arguing that the three-year threshold had not been met and that he had no financial obligation to the applicant.

The court found that the parties had cohabited as common law spouses for approximately eleven years, commencing around 1993 when the respondent moved into the applicant's residence at 907 Premier Road.

The court ordered ongoing spousal support, recognizing the applicant's contributions to the relationship and the economic consequences of the relationship's breakdown.

The court also considered the respondent's subsequent family obligations but determined that these did not eliminate his support obligations to the applicant.