Wade Smith

Following the dismissal of the responding party's urgent motion for breach of fiduciary duty and contempt, and the dismissal of the moving party's cross-motion to remove counsel, the moving party sought partial indemnity costs of $30,019.

The responding party argued for no costs due to divided success or that costs be reserved.

The court found the moving party was the successful party on the substantive issues, which were more complex and important than the removal motion.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs at $24,000 payable by the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion in an oppression application, alleging the respondent breached her fiduciary duties by usurping a corporate opportunity to extend a commercial lease and seeking a constructive trust over the new lease.

The applicant also alleged the respondent was in civil contempt of an interim order governing the joint management of their deadlocked company.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the lease extension was not a maturing corporate opportunity because the parties' deadlock rendered the company unable and unwilling to pursue it.

The court also found the applicant failed to establish civil contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for the production of third-party mental health and police records relating to the respondent mother in a child protection status review proceeding.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing it was a fishing expedition and an invasion of her privacy.

The court granted the motion, finding that the records may be relevant to assessing the mother's ability to parent and the children's best interests, and that the mother had not provided a physician's statement indicating that disclosure would cause harm.

The respondent father brought a successful motion to change, resulting in a reduction and termination of spousal support, imputation of income to the applicant mother, and orders for child support.

The father sought costs of the motion.

The court found the father was the successful party and that the mother's positions were unreasonable.

The mother also failed to make an offer to settle, whereas the father made a reasonable offer.

The court ordered the mother to pay costs of $15,000 to the father.

The father brought a motion to change a 2007 consent order, seeking to terminate spousal support and vary child support after both children moved to his primary care.

The mother opposed the termination of spousal support, citing health issues and an inability to find full-time work, and sought retroactive child support based on the father's significantly increased income.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the mother, finding her intentionally under-employed, and ordered her to pay child support and reimburse the father for overpayments.

The court also ordered the father to pay retroactive child support for 2015-2016, and ordered that spousal support step down and terminate in April 2019, finding the mother had been compensated for the economic disadvantages of the marriage.

The parties separated after a 12-year marriage with four children.

At trial, the remaining issues were the determination of each party's income for child support purposes, section 7 expenses, and security for support.

The court imputed an income of $24,000 to the applicant, finding she was intentionally underemployed having not worked since 2005.

The court rejected the applicant's request to impute an income of $250,000 to the respondent based on past income splitting with his father's company, setting his income at his actual salary of $103,268.

The court determined which extracurricular activities qualified as section 7 expenses and ordered the respondent to apply for life insurance to secure his child support obligations.

The court determined costs following motions for an adjournment and interim spousal support.

The respondent sought over $32,000 in costs, relying on an offer to settle that was more favourable than the spousal support order obtained by the applicant.

The court found the respondent's costs excessive and noted that his denial of spousal support entitlement unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

The applicant was ordered to pay $6,000 in costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, continued medical and dental coverage, and a life insurance designation following a 16-year relationship.

The respondent consented to the medical and dental coverage but opposed the support and life insurance claims.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie entitlement to needs-based support due to her financial dependence during the relationship and her ongoing medical needs.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $1,711 per month, representing the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and ordered the respondent to designate the applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary of a $250,000 life insurance policy to secure the support.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion relating to the respondent mother's alleged failure to support the father's relationship with the parties' child following a prior custody decision establishing joint custody with the child’s primary residence with the mother.

The court found that both parents displayed ongoing animosity and engaged in conduct undermining the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Rather than making a finding of contempt, the court clarified and amended aspects of the prior order concerning holiday exchanges, weekend parenting time, communication between parent and child, travel arrangements between provinces, and the use of airline unaccompanied minor services.

The court emphasized the child’s best interests and the obligation of separated parents to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent.

The parties were invited to make written submissions on costs, with the court indicating that no costs order was likely given the conduct of both parties.