Lawrence Pascoe

Following a family law motion involving interim support and property-related relief, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $8,000 plus HST.

The court reviewed the parties’ relative success, noting that both parties achieved some relief while failing on other claims, including competing requests for exclusive possession, support, and insurance-related orders.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including success, reasonableness of conduct, and offers to settle.

Although the respondent made a reasonable settlement offer, it was not signed by counsel and was not delivered within the required time period.

Given the evenly divided success and procedural deficiencies in the offer, the court declined to award costs.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking retroactive child support, variation of an arbitration award, and contributions toward post‑secondary expenses.

The court considered the framework for retroactive child support set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in D.B.S. v. S.R.G., including the recipient parent's delay, the payor parent's conduct, the circumstances of the children, and potential hardship.

The court found the payor parent had engaged in blameworthy conduct by misleading the recipient parent about his income after early retirement while earning substantially more through pension and employment.

Retroactive child support was ordered beginning May 1, 2007, based on the Child Support Guidelines and the payor parent’s actual income.

Ongoing support was recalculated on a split custody basis from May 2010, and the parties were ordered to contribute to post‑secondary expenses proportionate to their incomes.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a prior order requiring him to pay $700 per month in spousal support following an 18‑year marriage.

After his employment ended and he entered retirement, his income dropped substantially and he began receiving a pension.

The court found a material change in circumstances under s. 17 of the Divorce Act and considered the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, noting that the applicant had already paid support for more than 18 years, which exceeded the guideline duration range for the length of the marriage.

The respondent sought continuation of support and effectively a retroactive variation but had previously failed to pursue her own variation application for many years.

The court held it would be unfair to allow a retroactive claim and found that both parties now had similar incomes, making ongoing support unnecessary.