Keith Simpson

Following settlement of a motion to change child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant had sought increased child support and arrears consistent with the Child Support Guidelines and had made several settlement offers more favourable to the respondent than the ultimate settlement.

The respondent resisted paying guideline support but ultimately agreed to retroactive and ongoing payments.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering the parties’ offers to settle and conduct, the court held that the applicant was the successful party.

Substantial indemnity costs were ordered in favour of the applicant.

The respondent father brought a motion for interim child support in a hybrid custody arrangement, where two children lived with him and one child split time equally between the parents.

He also sought an advance for interim disbursements.

The court declined to impute additional income to the father's cash-based ice cream business due to insufficient evidence on an interim motion.

Applying the 'economies of scale' approach for hybrid custody, the court calculated the set-off amounts and ordered the applicant mother to pay $651 per month in child support, plus retroactive support.

The motion for interim disbursements was dismissed.