Brahm Siegel

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order that the children attend a new school in her catchment area.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for the children to remain at their current school.

The court reviewed the principles for school placement and found that the evidence did not establish that one school was clearly better than the other.

Emphasizing the children's best interests and the need for stability, the court ordered that the children remain at their current school, as there was no good reason to disrupt their established educational environment.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for increased retroactive and prospective spousal support, arguing the motion judge provided insufficient reasons and failed to apply the correct legal principles regarding post-separation income increases and her medical inability to work full-time.

The respondent cross-appealed the motion judge's refusal to award him costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding that the motion judge's reasons, while brief, were sufficient for appellate review and that there was no error in principle or material misapprehension of evidence in denying the support increase or in the exercise of discretion regarding costs.

Following a long motion regarding retroactive spousal support and child support, both parties sought costs.

The applicant claimed $29,700, while the respondent argued for costs based on bad faith or, alternatively, that each party should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court reviewed the settlement offers, the divided success across the temporary and long motions, and the conduct of the parties.

Ultimately, the court ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

This was a family law costs decision following a motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The court reviewed issue-by-issue success, the parties' offers to settle, the reasonableness of their litigation conduct, and the cost-effectiveness of the work performed under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Allegations of bad faith were rejected because they depended on credibility findings that could not be made on conflicting affidavit evidence.

Although the respondent enjoyed marginally greater success on some substantive issues, the motion was reasonably necessary and the applicant was awarded fixed costs of $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

On a motion for temporary child and spousal support following a 16-year marriage with three children, the court determined the respondent's income for support purposes by considering law practice income, recurring parental gifts, RRSP withdrawals, and investment growth.

Applying the framework for unusual gifts, the court imputed an annual $50,000 parental gift as income because it had been regularly received for years and had supported the family's lifestyle.

The court also imputed the three-year average of RRSP withdrawals, excluding a very large one-time withdrawal used to complete a post-separation home purchase after promised funding failed.

The court declined to attribute unrealized or sheltered increases in investment value as income at this stage, and fixed the respondent's income at $403,044, resulting in temporary child support of $6,255 per month and spousal support of $6,696 per month.