Katie Gaboury

This decision addresses costs arising from motions concerning the lifting of a stay order and the imposition of pre-conditions, including security for costs.

The court found divided success but determined the father (respondent) was more successful as meaningful pre-conditions were ordered for the mother (applicant) to lift the stay, particularly regarding her long-standing failure to provide financial disclosure.

The mother's unreasonable conduct in failing to provide adequate financial disclosure led to additional costs.

The court awarded the father $3,600 in costs, payable monthly, with 50% ($1,800) designated as support and enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant mother sought to lift a stay on her Motion to Change parenting and support terms, and to amend her motion to seek primary residence of the child.

The respondent father opposed lifting the stay and sought security for costs, or alternatively, pre-conditions including payment of outstanding costs and child support, and financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the father's request for security for costs, finding the mother's claim not to be a nuisance or waste of time, especially given the child's best interests.

However, the court imposed strict pre-conditions for lifting the stay, requiring the mother to provide comprehensive financial disclosure and pay outstanding costs and child support arrears within 120 days, citing her history of non-compliance and lack of financial transparency.

The court emphasized balancing the child's right to be heard with fairness to the father.

This is a costs decision following a trial on child support.

The applicant mother sought costs of $10,802 following her successful trial where the court imputed income to the father and ordered child support.

The respondent father argued for a reduced award of approximately $4,500.

The court awarded total costs of $8,700, comprised of $1,200 for a stayed motion and $7,500 for the trial, payable at $500 per month commencing October 1, 2020.

The court found the mother was the successful party, the father's behaviour was unreasonable including his failure to pay child support pursuant to a temporary support order, and the mother's conduct in making settlement offers demonstrated reasonableness.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a four-year-old child.

The respondent (mother) sought costs of $14,226.35, while the applicant (father) sought no costs award.

The court found that the mother was the successful party on the dominant issues (primary residence and parenting time) and was entitled to costs.

The mother had made two offers to settle, the second of which was severable and more favourable to the father on custody and support issues.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $275 per month commencing October 1, 2020.

The applicant mother sought child support from the respondent father for their three-year-old child.

The mother requested that income be imputed to the father in the amount of $57,699 annually, resulting in table support of $534 per month.

The father claimed to earn only $15,600 annually from part-time work and offered to pay $250 per month based on imputed income of $29,400.

The court found the father's evidence to be lacking in credibility due to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions regarding his employment history, financial situation, and efforts to seek employment.

The court concluded that the father was intentionally underemployed and had the capacity to earn the amount sought by the mother.

The court imputed income of $57,699 to the father and ordered him to pay $534 per month in table support commencing January 1, 2018, with arrears to be paid at $250 per month commencing September 1, 2020.

Trial decision determining custody, parenting time, and child support for a four-year-old child whose parents reside in different municipalities.

The mother was awarded custody and primary residence.

The father was granted generous parenting time including three out of four weekends monthly and mid-week visits.

Child support was ordered based on imputed income, with a phased approach accounting for pandemic impacts.

The court found the mother to be the more credible witness and better positioned to make major decisions for the child, while acknowledging both parents' commitment and love for the child.