Meredith Holmes

This decision addresses a cost award following a Motion to Change brought by the Respondent, Pamela Branson, which was largely dismissed.

The Applicant, Larry Branson, sought $32,777.34 in costs.

The Respondent challenged the partial indemnity rate applied and the full recovery of the cost for a jointly commissioned expert report (Collins Barrow Report).

The court found the Applicant to be the successful party and awarded the full amount of costs sought, concluding that the fees and disbursements were reasonable and proportionate, and rejecting the Respondent's arguments regarding the indemnity rate and expert report cost.

The respondent, Pamela Branson, brought a motion to change seeking retroactive spousal support and the discharge of a mortgage.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to increased incomes of both parties and the children reaching adulthood.

However, retroactive spousal support was denied because the applicant's increased corporate income was attributable to an excluded gift, not compensatory contributions from the respondent, and the respondent failed to establish past need or justify a seven-year delay in pursuing the motion.

The mortgage securing an equalization payment was ordered discharged upon Pamela Branson paying the outstanding balance of $856.

The applicant's request to terminate spousal support was not adjudicated.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a default judgment granted in a family law proceeding that awarded custody arrangements, child support, spousal support, equalization, and other relief.

The court considered whether the motion was brought promptly after discovery of the judgment, whether the default was satisfactorily explained, and whether there was an arguable defence on the merits.

The moving party acted within four days of learning of the judgment and provided a reasonable explanation that he had not been aware of the proceedings despite substituted service.

The court found there were arguable issues relating to custody, support, and equalization that should be litigated, particularly given the children’s best interests.

The default judgment was set aside and timelines were established for the filing of responding materials and further case management.

The applicant mother brought a motion for child support and section 7 expenses for the parties' three children.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion for spousal support and a contribution from the eldest child towards her post-secondary education.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the Table amount of child support retroactively, along with a proportionate share of section 7 expenses including post-secondary costs, summer camp, and vehicle expenses.

The court also found the respondent entitled to spousal support based on the length of the marriage and his need, ordering the applicant to pay $500 per month.

This was a costs endorsement following a lengthy, high conflict matrimonial trial involving property issues, business valuation, employability and earning capacity, spousal support, and child support.

The court held that the applicant achieved substantial success on the issues that consumed most of the trial and was presumptively entitled to costs under the Family Law Rules.

The court found no bad faith by either party, but concluded the applicant acted reasonably, including by attempting settlement, while the respondent acted unreasonably by failing to make settlement efforts, cancelling agreed arbitration, and failing to provide complete financial disclosure.

Applying the Family Law Rules and the fair and reasonable costs approach, the court ordered the respondent to pay $67,000 inclusive of HST, including expert disbursements.

In a matrimonial trial concerning property, support, and security, the court valued the respondent's closely held business at $307,000, rejected the asserted permanence of large family loan obligations, and found that a condominium transferred to the respondent by his parents remained beneficially his notwithstanding a later transfer back during the litigation.

The condominium's value was attributed to the respondent as excluded property for equalization purposes, and the court ordered an equalization payment of $140,000.

The applicant was awarded lump sum compensatory spousal support of $56,000, but no ongoing or retroactive child support was ordered given the shared parenting arrangement and the parties' relative capacities.

To secure payment, title to the Mississauga condominium was vested in the applicant for sale, subject to accounting for any net excess.

The Family Responsibility Office sought enforcement of child support arrears against the respondent pursuant to prior consent orders governing periodic child support and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent disputed the arrears calculation, alleging that certain extraordinary expenses were improperly included, that payments previously made under protest were not credited, and that certain accounting charges were erroneous.

The court interpreted the prior variation order as having established a “clean slate” fixing arrears as of specified dates, thereby incorporating all credits and charges up to that time.

The court accepted the enforcement calculation and determined the respondent remained in arrears.

The respondent was ordered to pay the arrears by a specified date, failing which enforcement by committal could be sought.