Marcel Banasinski

Following a nine‑day family law trial concerning child support income, arrears, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and distribution of trust funds, both parties sought substantial costs awards against the other.

The court considered the Family Law Rules, particularly Rule 24, and the principles governing costs including proportionality, success at trial, reasonableness of conduct, and the parties’ financial circumstances.

The court found that success at trial was divided, with each party prevailing on different issues.

Certain claimed fees and disbursements were disallowed because costs for earlier steps had not been reserved to the trial judge.

After weighing the relevant factors, the court concluded that fairness required each party to bear their own costs.

This addendum to prior reasons for judgment addressed an alleged error in the treatment of money held in trust following a family trial.

The court accepted that a prior consent order established that the trust funds belonged to the applicant, and found its earlier reasons mistakenly assumed each party was entitled to equal shares.

After setting off amounts owed between the parties, the court held the applicant was entitled to all trust funds.

The court struck specified paragraphs from the earlier reasons and corrected a typographical error relating to section 7 expenses.

Following a family trial, the court determined the payor spouse's income for child support purposes after rejecting the recipient's request to impute higher income based on alleged under-employment, cash income, and lifestyle evidence.

Applying the governing imputation principles and the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court fixed adjusted incomes, found that the payor had overpaid table child support, and ordered reimbursement through funds held in trust.

The court also assessed disputed s. 7 claims, allowing certain daycare, medical, dental, travel, and extracurricular expenses but rejecting school uniforms and past cell phone charges, while directing future sharing of the eldest child's cell phone expense.

Although the evidentiary basis for substantial spousal support was weak at the income levels accepted by the court, a modest amount for two years was ordered, and the remaining trust funds were distributed by set-off.