David J. Ashford

Costs decision following a motion to change the terms of a separation agreement involving child support and daycare expense set-offs.

The applicant successfully argued that his income had decreased and that the respondent’s refusal to accept that position forced the matter to trial despite settlement offers.

The court emphasized that self-represented parties are not immune from adverse cost consequences and must reasonably assess litigation risks.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and principles of proportionality, the court awarded partial costs reflecting the applicant’s significant success while keeping the quantum fair and reasonable.

Costs were ordered payable by monthly installments.

The applicant brought a motion to change the child support terms contained in a separation agreement, asserting that his income had decreased and that the support payable under the agreement no longer reflected his actual earnings.

The respondent alleged that the applicant was concealing income from cash payments, bonuses, and side work and sought imputation of a higher income.

The court accepted the applicant’s evidence that prior cash payments and bonuses had ceased and found no credible basis to impute additional income.

Applying the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, the court determined the applicant’s guideline income based on his actual earnings and recalculated table child support and section 7 childcare contributions accordingly.

The court also modified the payment structure for section 7 expenses to avoid reimbursement disputes between the parties.