Wade L. Smith

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $8,841.12 for a case conference and a motion concerning parenting issues, alleging unreasonable conduct by the respondent and having bested her own offer to settle.

The respondent argued for each party to bear their own costs or a lesser amount.

The court, applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality from *Beaver v. Hill* and *Mattina v. Mattina*, found the respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct but determined that the applicant did not meet the requirements for having bested her offer.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $4,625, inclusive of the case conference and motion, payable within 30 days.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for a temporary order for primary residential care of the three children, with specific parenting time for the respondent father.

The father opposed, seeking a different schedule, including equal residential time when he returned to work.

The court found serious credibility issues with the father's evidence and noted his conduct in overholding and withholding the children.

The mother's account of primary caregiving prior to separation was accepted.

The court granted the mother primary residential care, finding it to be in the children's best interests, and dismissed the father's counter-proposal for immediate or future equal residential time due to the children's need for stability.

The court addressed the non-payment of spousal support arrears amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent had purchased a bank draft but lost it, causing a delay in payment.

Considering the operational suspensions of the court and the respondent's age, the court ordered the respondent to replace the draft by April 7, 2020, and ensure its delivery to the applicant's counsel, provided it was safe to do so.

Counsel were also directed to provide an update by April 9, 2020.

The Respondent moved to vary a temporary spousal support order, seeking suspension of payments retroactive to December 1, 2018, and disclosure.

The Applicant opposed, seeking significant disclosure, access to the matrimonial home, and a non-dissipation order.

The court dismissed the non-dissipation order due to insufficient evidence of asset dissipation.

The motion to vary spousal support was treated as a de novo hearing, as the original order was "without prejudice" due to an incomplete financial record.

The court found the Applicant still in need of support and the Respondent able to pay, but noted changes in the Respondent's income.

The spousal support was reduced from $1,500 to $1,000 per month, effective May 1, 2019, and remained on a without prejudice basis.

The Applicant's disclosure requests were addressed, and the Respondent was ordered to provide extensive financial disclosure.

The applicant mother was entirely successful on her motion to change the children's primary residence, establish parenting time, and obtain child support.

She sought costs for the motion.

The court found that the applicant's offer to settle was more favourable to the respondent than the final order, entitling her to full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

After reducing some hours that pertained to the overall application rather than the motion, the court awarded the applicant costs of $11,492.38.

The Applicant, Ms. Davidson, sought costs after being the more successful party on a motion concerning exclusive possession and sale of the matrimonial home, child support for two adult children, and compliance with a disclosure order.

The Respondent, Mr. Davidson, brought a cross-motion.

The court found Ms. Davidson more successful overall, having obtained orders for exclusive possession, sale, and child support based on imputed income.

While both parties exhibited some unreasonable behaviour, Mr. Davidson's was to a greater extent, particularly regarding disclosure.

The court fixed costs at $8,000 for Ms. Davidson, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by Mr. Davidson.

This decision addresses the costs following a previous motion in Niranjan v. Rajaghatta, 2018 ONSC 5557.

The Applicant, Hema Niranjan, sought full recovery of her costs, arguing she was the successful party and the Respondent, Niranjan Rajaghatta, acted unreasonably.

The Respondent, self-represented, also sought costs, claiming success on child support and alleging the Applicant acted unlawfully.

The court found the Applicant was the successful party on the central issues of disclosure and the sale of the Brookstone property, and that her behaviour was reasonable.

The Respondent's behaviour was deemed unreasonable due to filing an unidentified affidavit and failing to provide full and frank disclosure.

Consequently, the court awarded the Applicant fixed costs of $3,500, payable forthwith.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking comprehensive financial disclosure from the Respondent, an order for interim child support, and the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The Respondent opposed the motion and attempted to bring a cross-motion, which was dismissed due to late service.

The court found the Respondent had failed to provide full and frank disclosure despite previous orders and drew an adverse inference regarding his divestment of corporate shares.

The court granted the Applicant's requests for detailed disclosure, ordered the continuation of interim child support, and mandated the sale of the jointly owned property, finding no prejudice to the Respondent's claims under the Family Law Act.

In this family law motion, the applicant sought exclusive possession and sale of the matrimonial home, sale of other properties, temporary spousal and child support, and to strike the respondent's pleadings.

The respondent cross-moved for exclusive possession, leave to claim a constructive trust, sale of one property, and support orders.

The court granted the applicant temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and ordered its sale, finding the respondent unreasonably withheld consent.

The court imputed an income of $82,000 to the respondent for temporary spousal and child support purposes.

The applicant's request to strike pleadings was denied, but the respondent was ordered to provide full financial disclosure.

The respondent was granted leave to amend his pleadings to claim a constructive trust.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking a temporary order to relocate the primary residence of the parties' two children from Ottawa to Brockville, Ontario, and for child support.

The respondent father opposed the motion.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a clause in the separation agreement requiring consent or a court order for relocation.

Applying the best interests of the child test from Gordon v. Goertz and interim mobility factors from Plumley v. Plumley, the court granted the temporary order permitting the move, citing the mother's new full-time employment, the strong family support network in Brockville, and the children's strong preference to relocate.

The father's parenting time was adjusted, and child support was ordered effective August 1, 2018.

A request for child counselling was declined on a temporary basis due to a lack of clear necessity and the joint decision-making authority of the parents.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim support, and a restraining order following the parties' separation.

The youngest child had been experiencing severe mental health issues and suicidal ideation related to the separation.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession of the home to provide stability for the child, deferred the support issues while ordering the father to pay specific home expenses, and dismissed the request for a restraining order due to insufficient evidence.

The respondent brought a motion under Rule 11(3) of the Family Law Rules for permission to amend her Answer and Claim, proposing extensive changes including thirty new claims and over a hundred factual changes, many of which were tort claims for damages.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The court allowed some of the proposed new claims, particularly tort claims like intentional infliction of mental suffering, finding them tenable at law and distinguishing previous Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.

However, the court disallowed other claims as redundant or untenable, and denied leave for the extensive factual amendments due to prolixity and lack of proportionality.

The respondent father brought a motion for increased and overnight access to the parties' two young children.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for temporary child support, spousal support, and an interim disbursement to hire an income expert.

The court granted the father's request for a graduated schedule of overnight access.

The court ordered the father to pay temporary child support of $2,108 per month and temporary spousal support of $770 per month, after imputing an income of $70,000 to the mother due to intentional underemployment.

The mother's request for a $20,000 interim disbursement was dismissed as she had access to joint funds.

Following a family law trial involving parenting, property, spousal support, and child support, both parties sought costs.

The court found that neither party achieved success on the property issues and both made unreasonable settlement offers.

The court declined to award costs for parenting, property, or spousal support due to divided success and the parties' failure to act in the children's best interests.

However, the applicant was awarded $7,500 in partial recovery costs for the issue of child support, as the respondent's position on child support was unsuccessful and he preferred his own financial interests over his support obligations.

This family law trial addressed custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following a contentious separation.

The court found significant credibility issues with both parents, particularly regarding their financial disclosures and conduct impacting the children's relationship with the father.

The court granted sole custody and primary residence to the mother, established a detailed access schedule, imputed income to both parents for support calculations, and ordered an equalization payment and post-separation credits in favour of the mother.

Mortgages unilaterally registered by the father against the matrimonial home were set aside, and both properties were ordered sold.

Lump sum spousal support was declined, but future spousal support was reserved.

Security for child support was ordered from the father's share of property sale proceeds.

The applicant moved to vary spousal support based on an amending separation agreement registered under the Family Law Act, arguing it became an order under the Divorce Act and a material change in circumstances (19% income reduction) justified a reduction.

The respondent opposed, arguing it should be treated as an initial application under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, not a variation under s. 17, as the agreement was not incorporated into a divorce order.

The court found that an agreement registered under the Family Law Act does not become an order under the Divorce Act for variation purposes and that neither party had properly brought an application under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act.

The motion was dismissed, but the parties were given 30 days to address the court on how to proceed.

The Applicant successfully moved to take over the parties’ rental property and use its income for her and their children's support.

The Respondent's cross-motion to reduce support to zero was dismissed.

The court found the Respondent behaved unreasonably by refusing to pay court-ordered support, blocking the Applicant’s access to funds, and failing to disclose significant financial information.

Costs were awarded to the Applicant on a substantial indemnity scale.

The applicant mother sought costs following her successful motion for judgment enforcing a settlement agreement on custody and access, and for retroactive spousal and child support.

The respondent father argued his offer to settle was better than the result achieved.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, as the respondent's offer did not include retroactive spousal support and he had unreasonably refused to honour the negotiated settlement agreement.

The court awarded the applicant her claimed partial indemnity costs of $4,607.30, finding them reasonable and proportional.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings or, in the alternative, for possession of a jointly held rental property due to the respondent's failure to pay court-ordered child and spousal support.

The respondent sought to reduce his support obligations to zero, claiming an inability to work due to depression.

The court rejected the respondent's evidence of disability as unreliable and noted his failure to disclose significant financial transactions.

Relying on Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court granted the applicant possession of the rental property to manage and receive income, ordering the respondent to vacate the premises.

The applicant moved for judgment based on a settlement agreement regarding custody and access, as well as interim spousal and child support.

The respondent argued the settlement was not binding because it did not comply with Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that while the correspondence did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 18, it constituted a binding agreement under general contract principles.

The court ordered final custody and access based on the agreement, awarded interim compensatory spousal support retroactive to the date the application was issued, and determined the parties' incomes for support calculations.