Kanata J. Cowan

Following a family law trial, the successful respondent sought full or partial indemnity costs.

The applicant, who was self-represented, sent a brief email refusing to pay costs.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

Although the applicant failed to fulfill disclosure obligations, the court found this was due to negligence rather than bad faith, and full indemnity costs were not warranted.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs of $28,838.65, finding the amount reasonable and proportionate.

The respondent sought costs following a successful motion for increased time-sharing with the parties' child.

The respondent claimed full recovery costs of $10,470 based on his success, reasonable conduct, and two offers to settle that triggered the costs consequences of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant opposed a significant costs award, citing her limited financial means as a student and expectant mother.

The court found the respondent was entitled to costs, noting his reasonable settlement efforts contrasted with the applicant's unreasonable litigation conduct.

While the respondent's offer to settle presumptively entitled him to full recovery costs for a portion of the proceeding, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the quantum due to the applicant's financial hardship.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $8,437, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant was previously awarded costs for a motion and counter-motion regarding financial disclosure and setting the matter down for trial.

The court found that the respondent intentionally refused to produce relevant documentation to frustrate the determination of child support.

The applicant claimed $13,143 in total costs.

To send a message that nothing short of full financial disclosure is acceptable, the court fixed costs at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The respondent father brought a motion to change the child support provisions of a separation agreement after losing his long‑term employment due to a plant closure and pursuing retraining as a plumber.

The applicant mother sought to have income imputed at the father’s former level, arguing that his decision to undertake a plumbing apprenticeship and accept severance instead of recall rights reflected unreasonable employment choices.

The court applied the principles governing imputation of income under s. 19 of the Child Support Guidelines and the test from Drygala v. Pauli.

The court found the job loss was involuntary, the retraining plan was reasonable in the circumstances, and the father had acted in good faith while diligently seeking employment.

Income was therefore not imputed; support was recalculated based on the father’s reduced income and adjusted section 7 expense contributions were ordered.