K. Larsen

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a separation agreement, seeking to relocate with the parties' youngest child to Montreal and to impute income to the respondent father for child support purposes.

The court found a material change in circumstances had occurred when the older children ceased contact with the father and he stopped paying his share of section 7 expenses.

The court permitted the relocation, finding it in the child's best interests as the mother required family support to care for the child's significant medical needs.

The court imputed the father's income at $80,000 due to intentional under-employment and ordered him to pay ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and arrears.

Following a successful motion setting aside a prior contempt order, the applicant sought full recovery costs of approximately $12,959.66.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded because the matter concerned setting aside a contempt finding and the respondent was required to attend to assist the court, or alternatively that the bill was disproportionate.

The court held that the applicant was completely successful and that the respondent could have consented or taken a non-opposition position to avoid the hearing.

Applying modern costs principles emphasizing partial indemnification, encouragement of settlement, and discouragement of unnecessary litigation, the court found full indemnity costs unwarranted but awarded partial costs.

Costs of $5,500 all inclusive were ordered payable by the respondent to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 25(19)(e) of the Family Law Rules to set aside a contempt order made after she failed to attend the hearing.

She asserted that her former counsel advised her that attendance was unnecessary because the hearing date had been moved.

The court held that a party who reasonably relies on incorrect advice from counsel may be considered "unable" to attend within the meaning of the rule.

Given the quasi‑criminal nature of contempt findings and the absence of the applicant’s evidence at the original hearing, the court set aside the contempt finding, fine, and costs order and directed that the issue could be reheard on a full evidentiary record.