Adriana Doyle

Following competing interim family law motions, the court invited written submissions on costs where either party believed their offers to settle met the requirements of Rule 18 of the Family Court Rules.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs, arguing the outcome was as favourable or more favourable than his offers to settle.

The court held that the applicant’s offers were not severable and therefore had to be assessed as a whole.

Because the final orders were less favourable to the applicant on several key issues, including the matrimonial home, imputed income, child support set-off, and section 7 expense proportions, the applicant failed to meet the burden under Rule 18(15).

No costs were awarded.

On cross-motions for interim family law relief following separation, the court addressed parenting time, support, a custody and access assessment, and the disposition of the matrimonial home.

Applying the interim custody principle that the status quo should generally be maintained absent compelling evidence, the court found the father’s increased involvement with the children since separation supported an equal parenting arrangement and ordered a week‑on/week‑off schedule.

Interim child support was calculated on a high-income payor basis using a weighted average income of approximately $670,554 for the father and $15,000 for the mother, with set‑off child support and spousal support determined using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also ordered the sale of the matrimonial home under the Partition Act to allow the mother access to her equity.

A custody and access assessment was directed.

The respondent opposed a motion by the payor parent seeking termination of child support obligations for adult children pursuing post-secondary education.

The court considered whether an employment severance payment should be included in the payor’s income for child support purposes and whether new academic evidence concerning one child’s post-secondary progress should be admitted.

The court held that severance payments functioning as income replacement are properly included in income for child support calculations.

Support for one child was ordered to continue temporarily until a fixed termination date to allow completion of studies, while support for another child continued because the evidentiary record regarding post-secondary plans was incomplete.

Retroactive section 7 expense contributions were also ordered and a nominal costs award was granted.

The father brought a motion to change a previous order, seeking to terminate child support for two adult children, arguing they were no longer in school and were alienated from him.

The mother opposed, seeking continued support, retroactive support based on the father's increased income, and payment of section 7 expenses.

The court found no alienation and held that one child, despite slow progress due to a social anxiety disorder, remained a child of the marriage.

Support for the second child was suspended pending documentary proof of progress in his college program.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive support and his share of section 7 expenses.

Following a motion to change concerning the interpretation of a separation agreement and the calculation of child support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The parties achieved mixed success, with the moving party prevailing on the interpretation of the agreement and retroactive child support period, while the responding party succeeded on the residence of the child for support purposes.

Applying the principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the moving party was more successful overall but that full indemnity costs were not warranted.

Costs of $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements were awarded to the moving party and characterized as support for enforcement purposes.

The court also approved a payment schedule proposed by the responding party for retroactive child support.

The applicant father brought an application for custody or access to his seven-year-old son, whom he had not seen in four years.

The father brought a motion to enforce an order for the Office of the Children's Lawyer to prepare a report, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the father's application.

The court found that the child had significant special needs, including ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder, requiring a parent with excellent self-regulation.

Given the father's history of criminal activity, substance abuse, and ADHD, and his failure to provide evidence of his capacity to meet the child's needs, the court granted the mother's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the father's motion.