Linda Smith

The applicant sought full indemnity costs following an uncontested trial for child support where the respondent was noted in default.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by intentionally delaying proceedings, refusing DNA testing, and failing to provide financial disclosure.

The court awarded full recovery costs, including reduced hours for student caseworkers from a university legal clinic and disbursements for a pro bono forensic accountant, emphasizing that pro bono representation does not shield an opposing party from costs consequences.

The applicant mother sought a declaration of parentage and retroactive child support from the respondent, an Australian orthopedic surgeon.

The respondent repeatedly evaded the proceedings, refused court-ordered DNA testing, and failed to provide financial disclosure, resulting in his pleadings being struck.

The court drew adverse inferences, declared the respondent the child's parent, and imputed his income at $563,738 CDN.

Finding blameworthy conduct and significant deprivation to the child, the court awarded retroactive child support back to 2009, totaling $564,684.12, and ordered ongoing support at the Table amount.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs after successfully obtaining an order for DNA paternity testing of the Respondent.

The Respondent opposed, arguing for lower costs and alleging bad faith by the Applicant.

The court, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, found the Applicant was the successful party but did not find bad faith by either party.

Considering the importance and complexity of the issues, the reasonableness of counsel's time and hourly rate ($300/hour for 18 years experience), and the absence of applicable offers to settle, the court awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court also affirmed that a legally-aided client's fee arrangement with Legal Aid does not need to be disclosed, and costs should be assessed based on the private rate of the solicitor.

The Respondent was ordered to pay $4,500.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change seeking expanded and overnight access to her child, who has been in the custody of the paternal grandmother since birth.

The grandmother opposed the expansion and sought to reduce access due to safety concerns, the mother's inconsistent exercise of access, and the child's heightened anxiety.

The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that expanded access was not in the child's best interests, citing the mother's refusal to vet new partners and failure to prioritize the child's needs.

The court reduced the mother's access to every other Saturday and dismissed the grandmother's request to restrict the mother from bringing future motions.