Kanata J. Cowan

This decision concerns an urgent motion brought by the father, Keven Moniz, seeking the immediate return of funds removed by the mother, Diane Filipe, from joint accounts following separation.

The court reviews the parties' financial circumstances, the history of their relationship, and the competing submissions regarding the urgency and fairness of the requested relief.

The court orders the mother to pay the father $75,000 as a partial repayment of his share of the joint savings, with further funds to be held in trust pending future proceedings.

Costs are awarded to the father, with a portion set off against a previous order.

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.

Following a 36-day high-conflict family law trial where the applicant father was entirely successful on custody and child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought nearly $265,000 in costs, having spent $300,000 on legal fees, while the respondent mother spent over $200,000.

The court found the applicant's offers to settle triggered the presumption of full recovery under Rule 18(14) for certain issues, and noted the respondent's unreasonable behaviour significantly lengthened the trial.

Balancing proportionality, affordability, and the respondent's conduct, the court ordered the respondent to pay $192,000 in costs.

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.

This was a costs decision following a two-and-a-half-day oral hearing of a motion to change concerning child support for the parties' son.

The moving party on the underlying motion established a material change in circumstances after an involuntary layoff, and the court rejected the opposing party's position that pre-layoff income should continue to be imputed under s. 19 of the Child Support Guidelines.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held the successful party was predominantly entitled to costs, although reduced for divided success on section 7 and extraordinary expenses, unreasonable conduct by both sides, and proportionality concerns.

A prior offer was found close to the result and relevant under Rule 18(16), but insufficiently precise to trigger full recovery under Rule 18(14).

Costs were fixed at $17,000 inclusive of H.S.T. and disbursements.

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.

The respondent brought a motion to vary a separation agreement concerning child support and section 7 expenses under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The dispute focused on whether certain extracurricular, school, medical, and communication expenses qualified as extraordinary expenses.

The court applied the test from Andrews v. Andrews requiring that section 7 expenses be extraordinary, necessary in the children’s best interests, and reasonable given the parents’ means.

Competitive swimming, school football participation, a school trip, uninsured medical and dental expenses, and children’s cell phone expenses were found to qualify as section 7 expenses.

The court also determined that a prior lump sum payment satisfied arrears up to the date of payment.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to reinstate his former spouse as a beneficiary under his extended medical benefit coverage.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the appellant complied with the order, rendering the appeal moot.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting it also lacked jurisdiction as the order was not final, and awarded $5,000 in costs to the respondent, reduced due to both counsel's failure to recognize the appeal's futility earlier.

The parties separated in 2009 after a brief marriage and having one child.

They agreed to equal time-sharing of the child.

The court determined the dates of cohabitation and separation, and calculated the applicant's income for support purposes.

The court imputed an annual income of $40,000 to the respondent, finding she was intentionally unemployed.

The court ordered the applicant to pay spousal support of $5,000 per month for a fixed term based on a needs-based analysis, and child support of $1,615 per month based on a set-off of the parties' table amounts under the shared custody provisions of the Child Support Guidelines.

Retroactive support was ordered effective January 1, 2010.

Following a motion and cross‑motion in a family law proceeding concerning temporary parenting time and spousal support, both parties sought substantial indemnity costs and alleged unreasonable conduct by the other.

The court noted that success on the underlying motion was divided, with the applicant obtaining increased time with the child and the respondent obtaining spousal support.

Given the mixed outcome and the parties’ comparable claims for costs, the court found that neither party should be rewarded with a costs award or required to pay the other’s costs.

The court therefore declined to order costs.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased temporary time-sharing with the parties' five-year-old daughter, and the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for temporary spousal support.

Despite conflicting affidavit evidence, the court applied the maximum contact principle under the Divorce Act and granted the applicant increased parenting time.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay temporary spousal support of $1,350 per month based on the parties' respective incomes and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Following an appeal where success was divided, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement ordering that each party bear their own costs.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment awarding custody of the parties' child to the respondent mother, along with spousal support, child support based on imputed income, and an equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the custody and equalization orders, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the Court set aside the spousal support award due to a lack of evidence of economic disadvantage, and reduced the child support obligation, finding no evidentiary basis to impute income to the appellant.