Leroy Arif Bleta

This is a costs endorsement following a trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for four children.

The respondent (mother), who was largely successful at trial, sought full recovery costs of $45,000.

The applicant (father) reargued his case and criticized the judiciary.

The court found the mother was the successful party and, despite the father's unreasonable and insulting conduct towards justice participants, determined his actions did not meet the high threshold for a finding of bad faith.

Considering the father's financial circumstances and unreasonable litigation approach, the court awarded the mother $24,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, with a payment plan.

A portion of $6,000 was designated as support, enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

This trial concerned parenting and child support arrangements for four children.

The father sought primary residence and decision-making, and child support, while the mother sought the same, along with specific parenting orders and communication restrictions, alleging family violence.

The court found the mother to be the primary caregiver and a capable parent, while the father was deemed manipulative, selfish, and to have perpetuated family violence.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, and ordered a graduated parenting time schedule for the father with strict conditions.

Child support was ordered based on the father's current income, starting January 1, 2023.

The applicant (mother) sought costs against the respondent (father) arising from a focused trial concerning child support for two young children.

The mother sought to impute income to the father based on his previous full-time employment and requested that he pay his proportionate share of the children's section 7 expenses.

The father sought to pay child support based on ODSP and minimal employment income.

The mother was completely successful at trial.

The court found that the father had quit a well-paying unionized job without securing alternative employment and had made minimal efforts to find work since leaving.

The mother served a reasonable offer to settle two weeks before trial, which the father rejected.

The court awarded costs to the mother, finding that the father acted unreasonably in failing to accept the offer and that the mother was entitled to costs under the Family Law Rules.

A trial concerning child support for two children (ages 6 and 4) following the separation of the parents.

The mother sought child support based on an imputed income of $47,129 (the respondent's average income for three years of full-time employment) and contributions to special and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent sought to pay based on his current income from Ontario Disability Support Payment (ODSP) and limited employment income.

The court found the respondent intentionally under-employed and imputed income at $47,129, ordering monthly child support and a 70% contribution to section 7 expenses.

Following a successful construction lien trial in which the plaintiff recovered unpaid accounts and defeated the defendant’s set‑off and counterclaim, the court determined costs of the actions and reference under the Construction Lien Act.

The litigation had become complex due largely to the defendant’s conduct, including repeated procedural defaults, unsuccessful motions and appeals, and failure to comply with court orders, which significantly lengthened the proceeding.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, the plaintiff’s Rule 49 offer to settle, proportionality, and the principle of indemnification.

Finding the defendant overwhelmingly responsible for the escalation of costs and noting that the plaintiff had recovered more than double its settlement offer, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs of $78,107.90 were fixed in favour of the plaintiff.