Kristen Chapman

This was a costs ruling arising from a family law motion to change concerning parenting time, school choice, and decision-making for a young child.

Although the substantive dispute settled on consent shortly before trial, the court found the final resolution substantially favoured the applicant's litigation positions and that the respondent had taken unreasonable positions and unreasonably declined settlement offers.

Applying rr. 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court balanced success, proportionality, settlement incentives, litigation conduct, and the respondent's limited financial means.

Partial indemnity costs of $50,000 inclusive of HST were awarded, payable in monthly instalments of $250.

The applicant, Scott Henderson, brought a motion seeking a temporary order to fix monthly arrears payments at $3907.10 USD, pending the adjudication of his motion to vary a 2009 final support order.

The respondent, Suzanne Henderson, opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and that Arizona authorities had jurisdiction over arrears enforcement.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding it improper as it sought to amend a final order without a live Motion to Change, and premature as there was no active application to vary the original order.

The court clarified that the proper remedy was a Motion to Change and noted that Arizona authorities, under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, were empowered to set the monthly amount to be deducted for arrears.

The appellant appealed a supplementary family arbitration award concerning child support income calculations and spousal support.

She argued the arbitrator erred by using a formula to determine income rather than strictly applying the Federal Child Support Guidelines, by declining to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and by providing insufficient reasons for the spousal support amount and commencement date.

The court held the arbitrator did not err in maintaining the previously ordered income-calculation formula, noting the appellant had originally requested that approach and did not appeal the earlier award.

The court also found no error in declining to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines given the parties’ agreement, the high income involved, and the atypical circumstances.

Applying the standard of review for arbitral awards, the court concluded there was no palpable and overriding error and that the reasons were adequate when read together with the earlier award.

This is a preliminary motion ruling on appeals of Compliance Audit Committee decisions to order compliance audits of election campaign finances.

The appellants sought to have the appeals conducted as hearings de novo, while the respondents and the Committee argued the appeals should be limited to a review of the record.

The court determined that absent a clear statutory mandate to the contrary, appeals must take the form of a review of the record rather than de novo hearings.

The court rejected arguments that deficiencies in the record, the Committee's failure to provide reasons, or the prematurity of the audit application warranted a de novo hearing format.