Larissa Marie Bazoian

The parties resolved all corollary issues for divorce except primary residence and decision-making responsibilities for their eight-year-old daughter.

The applicant mother sought to move the child's primary residence to Ancaster to live with her new partner, while the respondent father sought to keep the child's primary residence in St. Catharines where she had grown up.

The court ordered joint decision-making, finding the parents had a history of co-parenting despite their conflict.

The court ordered the child's primary residence to remain in St. Catharines with the father, finding that the move to Ancaster would cause significant disruption to the child's life and that the mother's negative behaviour towards the father raised concerns about her ability to facilitate maximum contact.

The respondent, Andrew Witt, sought $200,000 in costs following a 14-day family law trial where he was largely successful in his claims for expanded access, varied child support, and dismissal of the applicant's spousal support claim.

The applicant, Shannon Witt, opposed the costs request, arguing she was the successful party due to Andrew's alleged reprehensible conduct, and sought her own costs while challenging the quantum of Andrew's claim and requesting time to pay due to modest financial resources.

The court found Andrew to be the successful party, presumptively entitled to costs, and rejected Shannon's arguments regarding Andrew's conduct and her re-characterization of trial findings.

The court fixed Andrew's costs at $125,000, including disbursements, payable by Shannon in three annual installments, after considering the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the impact of Andrew's offers to settle, and Shannon's financial situation.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to change spousal support.

The parties had been married for 21 years and reached a consent order in 2012 providing for $12,000 per month in spousal support plus 27% of incentive employment income.

The motion judge dismissed the motion to change, finding that while the respondent's income had increased, no additional compensatory support was warranted.

The appellant argued the motion judge misunderstood the principles of compensatory support under Moge v. Moge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no legal error, error in principle, or significant misapprehension of evidence.