Lisa Chegini

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a motion for temporary spousal support.

The court considered whether the mother’s offer to settle attracted costs consequences under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules and found it did not, due to the offer being a final settlement on a temporary motion and served with insufficient notice.

The court analyzed the concept of divided success on the motion, concluding the mother was the more successful party on the dominant issue of prospective temporary spousal support.

The court declined to defer the costs decision to the trial judge, emphasizing that temporary support orders are routinely subject to adjustment and are not "without prejudice." Ultimately, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $1,200 to the mother.

The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary spousal support from the applicant father after a 15-year cohabitation.

The mother claimed disability since 2016 and sought compensatory and non-compensatory support.

The father argued the mother was deliberately unemployed and sought to impute income to her, requesting the issue be sent to trial.

The court found the mother had established a prima facie entitlement to temporary spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, rejecting the father's request to impute income or defer the decision to trial.

The court ordered the father to pay $2,000 per month in temporary spousal support, starting April 1, 2024, aiming to equalize net disposable incomes given the shared parenting arrangement.

The applicant, John Maximo Clemente, brought a 14B motion for leave for an urgent Case Conference regarding access issues for his three-year-old son, "D".

The respondent, Rachel Sara O’Brien, opposed the motion.

The court reviewed the meaning of "pressing" as per the May 19, 2020 Notice to the Profession, concluding it requires a threshold no less than that for an urgent motion under Rosen v. Rosen.

The court found that the applicant had not seen his son since an altercation in November 2019, which led to criminal charges and a recognizance prohibiting contact with the respondent.

The court determined that the applicant's request did not meet the test for either an urgent or pressing issue, as there were no immediate health, safety, or economic concerns for the child, and the applicant had not engaged in genuine settlement discussions or explored available options for supervised access.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties were encouraged to engage in out-of-court discussions.