Linsey Sherman

The court rendered a costs endorsement following a motion regarding child support.

Both the father and mother sought costs, claiming divided success.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and considered factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance and complexity of issues, reasonableness of behaviour, lawyers' rates, time spent, and expenses.

The court found divided success and that neither party's offer was as favourable as or more favourable than the final award.

Consequently, no costs were ordered.

Following a motion regarding child support and post-secondary educational costs, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought partial indemnity costs of $8,000 to $10,000, while the father sought costs of $27,019.12.

The court found that there was divided success, as the mother was successful in obtaining a contribution for post-secondary expenses and life insurance proof, while the father was successful in having support based on his actual income.

Neither party beat their respective offers to settle.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

This costs endorsement followed an urgent motion regarding interim custodial arrangements for a child.

The applicant mother sought partial indemnity costs, arguing divided success and the respondent father's unreasonable behaviour.

The respondent father sought full recovery costs, claiming success on the motion.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful on the main motion regarding custody.

However, the father's actions of resorting to self-help by unilaterally removing the child from daycare and making unsubstantiated allegations about the mother's mental health were deemed unreasonable.

The court emphasized that self-help remedies in custodial matters are to be discouraged and ordered the father to pay the mother $7,500 in costs.

The respondent mother sought to change a child support agreement, including a sharing of post-secondary expenses and proof of a life insurance policy.

The applicant father objected, citing unemployment and seeking a retroactive adjustment.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to income changes and a child attending university.

The court imputed income to the father, finding his decision to leave his lucrative employment in Vietnam without securing new full-time work in England unreasonable, thereby prioritizing his own interests over his children's support needs.

Child support was adjusted retroactively based on the imputed income, and the father was ordered to contribute to post-secondary expenses and provide proof of an irrevocable life insurance designation.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, primary residence, permission to relocate, and child support, initiating proceedings after the respondent father unilaterally retained the child from daycare.

The father sought enforcement of a separation agreement for shared custody with alternating weeks, or an equal time schedule, and disclosure regarding the mother's mental health.

The court dismissed the father's mental health allegations as unproven and condemned his self-help remedy.

On an interim-interim basis, the court ordered joint custody with a 2-2-3 parenting schedule, appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and set an expedited case conference, deferring final determinations on custody, relocation, and the validity of the separation agreement.

On a motion for interim spousal support, the court determined the quantum of support and whether the applicant husband should receive credit for paying the respondent wife's car insurance.

The court granted the husband credit for the car insurance payments made in 2013 and 2014.

Regarding spousal support, the court rejected the wife's request for the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, noting she was not working or going to school despite having a full-time nanny and shared custody.

The court ordered interim spousal support at the mid-range of $4,211 per month.

On an interim family law motion, the responding spouse sought partition and sale of a non‑matrimonial rental property, interim disbursements to retain an income valuation expert, imputation of income to the other spouse, and interim child and spousal support.

The court declined to order partition and sale on an interim motion, finding the issue better determined at trial given disputed equity and mortgage claims involving family members.

The court exercised its discretion under the Family Law Rules to order partial interim disbursements to fund an income analysis.

Applying s. 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines, the court imputed limited income for certain employment benefits but rejected broader lifestyle‑based imputations tied to discretionary gifts from family or a family‑owned business.

Interim child support was ordered based on the adjusted income, with retroactive support, while determination of interim spousal support was deferred pending updated calculations.

Following a four‑day family law trial concerning the appropriate school for the parties’ child, the successful party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $234,000 based on offers to settle and alleged unreasonable conduct by the other party.

The court confirmed the presumption under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules that the successful party is entitled to costs but emphasized that the quantum must remain fair and reasonable in light of the nature of the dispute, the complexity of the issue, and the parties’ financial circumstances.

The court found both parties acted reasonably and rejected claims for full recovery, significantly reducing counsel’s hourly rates and the hours claimed.

Applying the reasonableness principle and considering Rule 24 factors, the court fixed fees at $73,964.15 plus disbursements.

A total costs award of $78,028.03 was ordered, payable in monthly instalments.

The applicant father sought an order under s. 16 of the Divorce Act to have the parties' nine-year-old daughter transfer from a French-language school to an English-language private school with an extended French program.

The respondent mother opposed the transfer, arguing the child needed to maintain her French culture and stability.

The parties shared joint custody with an equal time-sharing schedule.

The court considered factors including the parents' ability to participate in education, the child's stability, cultural heritage, sibling relationships, holiday schedules, and academic performance.

The court found that transferring to the English-language school was in the child's best interests, as it would align her schedule with her sisters, provide smaller class sizes, and not significantly compromise her bilingualism or French culture.