Daniel Toppari

In this family costs decision following trial, the successful applicant sought substantial costs on a full indemnity basis relying on an earlier offer to settle.

The court held that although the applicant was entitled to costs under the presumptive rule for successful parties, the offer did not trigger full indemnity consequences because the final order preserved a future review mechanism for spousal support that the offer would have waived.

The court further held that the responding party's precarious financial circumstances were relevant to quantum, though not entitlement.

Costs were fixed at $6,000 inclusive on a partial indemnity basis, payable within 180 days.

The court issued supplementary reasons to correct the terms of a final order regarding the parties' matrimonial home and joint line of credit.

The corrected order requires the applicant to pay half of the mortgage, taxes, and insurance pending the sale of the home, and to indemnify the respondent for their joint line of credit.

The parties' other claims, including for net family property and spousal support, were dismissed.

The parties separated after a short marriage.

The applicant sought the sale of the matrimonial home and division of net family property, while the respondent sought spousal support and exclusive possession.

The court ordered the matrimonial home to be listed for sale and the parties to share carrying costs.

The court found the respondent was entitled to spousal support on a non-compensatory basis, but declined to order periodic or lump sum payments, finding that the applicant's assumption of the parties' joint line of credit debt fully offset any spousal support obligation.

The applicant was ordered to indemnify the respondent for the joint debt.

The applicant sought temporary custody of two children pending trial in a high‑conflict parenting dispute.

Evidence included a detailed Office of the Children’s Lawyer report recommending parallel parenting and a Children’s Aid Society affidavit recommending sole custody to the respondent with supervised access.

The court found both parents demonstrated poor cooperation and had exposed the children to conflict but determined the OCL investigation was more objective and persuasive.

The court rejected reliance on uncorroborated statements from a child experiencing emotional difficulties and declined to impose supervised parenting time.

A temporary parallel parenting regime with divided residential time and shared decision‑making responsibilities was ordered pending trial.