Laura Paris

A post-settlement costs determination in a family law matter involving a parenting dispute.

The applicant father sought costs of $344,656.72 on a full indemnity basis, alleging the respondent mother acted in bad faith, made false allegations, and unreasonably prolonged litigation over seven years.

The respondent opposed any costs award, arguing the case settled through compromise and that the applicant drove the conflict.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding that objective benchmarks of success are lacking in negotiated settlements and that determining reasonableness on a written record without trial findings would require a mini-trial inappropriate to the costs process.

The case determined the date of separation for a married couple, which was crucial for the limitation period of an equalization claim under the Family Law Act.

The applicant (Wife) asserted a later separation date (May 16, 2021), while the respondent (Husband) argued for an earlier date (December 10, 2014).

The court analyzed the parties' conduct and intent, applying factors from case law regarding living separate and apart while cohabiting.

The court found that despite a decline in intimacy and marital satisfaction, neither party took unequivocal steps to end the marriage until the applicant's clear communication in May 2021.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

Following a successful motion regarding a summer parenting schedule, the applicant sought full indemnity costs of $9,850.93.

The respondent did not file costs submissions and had previously stated she would not comply with court orders.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules by overtly deciding not to comply with court orders.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $7,500, reducing the requested amount slightly for proportionality.

The moving parties (two fathers) sought full indemnity costs of approximately $75,000 following a successful motion that changed the respondent mother's parenting time to supervised access.

The court found that while the fathers were successful and presumptively entitled to costs, their claim was unreasonable and disproportionate for a one-hour motion.

The court also criticized the unnecessary and ill-conceived contempt motion brought by one of the fathers, which unnecessarily complicated the proceedings.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000, apportioned equally between the fathers.

Following the dismissal of the moving party's motion for leave to appeal, the responding parties sought costs.

The court had initially ordered no costs because the respondents had not filed costs outlines.

The respondents subsequently contacted the court to request costs, arguing they had uploaded a bill of costs late or should be allowed to make submissions after the decision.

The Divisional Court declined to amend its order, noting that the scheduling direction clearly required all costs materials to be uploaded by a specific date, consistent with the court's practice direction.

No costs were awarded.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No order as to costs was made as the responding parties did not file costs outlines.

The applicant brought a contempt motion to enforce a final order regarding the return of household possessions.

The applicant had hired private investigators to surreptitiously enter the respondent's home under false pretenses to take photographs and videos of the items.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, holding that contempt is a remedy of last resort in family law and should not be used as a first step for enforcement.

The court also noted it would have declined to exercise its discretion to grant contempt due to the applicant's unacceptable conduct in using private investigators.

Furthermore, the court criticized the applicant's counsel for failing to comply with principles of civility and professionalism by unilaterally scheduling the motion and refusing reasonable adjournment requests.