Lisa Sharp

The court considered costs following a 16-day family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support.

The applicant father sought substantial indemnity costs of $32,744.50, arguing success on most issues and the respondent mother's bad faith.

The respondent mother argued that prior costs were determined by Justice Shelston and that the father caused trial delays.

Applying Family Law Rule 24(11), the court found mixed success for both parties and noted unreasonable behaviour from both, including the father's breaches of interim orders and the mother's unreasonable position on travel.

Given the mixed success and the parties' conduct, the court ordered no costs.

The parties sought costs for a motion where the applicant sought a change in exchange time for their daughter and the respondent sought leave to abridge timelines for an expert report and an increase in child support.

The court found that success on the motion was divided, as the respondent was unreasonable on the exchange time issue but the applicant should have recognized an increase in child support was inevitable.

The court declined to make an order for costs in favour of either party.

This trial concerned a family law dispute over custody, parenting arrangements, travel limitations, child support, and a restraining order.

The father sought joint custody and equal parenting time, while the mother sought sole custody and restricted access.

The court awarded the mother sole custody with consultation rights for the father, but granted the father equal parenting time on a week-on/week-off schedule.

Both parents were permitted to travel internationally with the child, subject to reasonable consent and notice.

The father was ordered to pay child support until the equal parenting time commenced, with no retroactive support.

The mother's request for a full restraining order was denied, but a non-communication order was maintained.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship for the purposes of adoption for two children.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing that the society's evidentiary record consisted largely of inadmissible hearsay.

The court agreed, finding that the society relied heavily on hearsay evidence from various professionals and individuals without establishing the threshold requirements of necessity and reliability.

The court rejected the society's argument that the Family Law Rules or the Supreme Court's decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin relaxed the rules of evidence for summary judgment motions in child protection cases.

Concluding that it could not fairly resolve the dispute on the flawed record, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment and directed the matter to trial.

Following a family law motion addressing parenting issues, school enrollment, and child support, the court determined costs arising from the motion.

The moving party had limited success, obtaining a slight reduction in child support and resolving summer access, but was unsuccessful on the central issue concerning enrollment of the child in junior kindergarten without both parents’ consent.

The responding party had been required to prepare materials for several issues that did not proceed due to the matter being better addressed at trial after a settlement conference.

Considering the divided success and the preparation required, the court awarded the responding party partial costs.

Costs were fixed at $3,500 inclusive, payable in monthly installments.

The applicant brought a family law motion addressing several interim parenting and support issues, including summer parenting time, child support recalculation following a change in employment income, and whether the child should be enrolled in junior kindergarten.

The court accepted that the applicant’s shift to a lower-paying full-time position was not voluntary underemployment but imputed modest additional income for potential summer employment and adjusted child support accordingly.

The court declined to order the child’s enrolment in junior kindergarten given disputed facts and the absence of a custody or decision-making order.

On the respondent’s request, the court directed the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to conduct an updated clinical investigation using a different investigator in preparation for trial.

Summer parenting time was resolved by consent.

The father brought a motion to change a 2007 joint custody order, seeking primary residence of the two children.

The mother opposed and sought sole custody.

The court found that the escalating parental conflict constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, the court concluded that changing primary residence or granting sole custody would not address the core problem of parental conflict.

The court dismissed both parties' claims to change custody and primary residence, maintaining joint custody with primary residence to the mother.

The court ordered both parents to attend counseling to assist them in co-parenting and made minor modifications to the access schedule.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order, seeking custody, a restraining order, restrictions on the respondent father's online postings, child support based on imputed income, and termination or supervision of access with a psychiatric assessment requirement.

The father had a history of domestic violence, alcohol abuse, and online harassment of the mother, and had failed to pay child support despite having the ability to do so.

The court granted custody to the mother, ordered supervised access to continue, required the father to undergo a psychiatric assessment before access could be reviewed, fixed child support arrears, and imputed an income of $31,000 to the father for ongoing child support.

Following a motion in a family law proceeding concerning compliance with an equalization payment ordered at trial, the court addressed the issue of costs.

A prior order had directed that a reference be conducted after the respondent’s discharge from bankruptcy to determine the unpaid value of any net equalization payment, but neither party had arranged the reference.

The court ordered that the reference proceed because the determination of the outstanding equalization payment would resolve most issues and clarify which party had been successful.

In the circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to defer the determination of costs until after the reference was completed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking imputation of income to the respondent, retroactive spousal support, variation of an existing spousal support order, recalculation of equalization, and continuation of medical benefits.

The dispute centred on whether the respondent had failed to pay a previously ordered equalization payment and whether a bankruptcy filing affected that obligation.

The court noted that a prior order required a reference to determine the unpaid equalization amount but that the reference had never been conducted.

Given unresolved factual disputes and credibility issues, the court held that these matters required determination through the ordered reference or mediation.

Interim spousal support and continuation of medical benefits were ordered pending resolution, subject to potential credit if no entitlement ultimately exists.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking overnight access to his two children until the start of school, relying on interim minutes of settlement.

The father, an admitted alcoholic who recently completed rehabilitation, admitted to consuming alcohol on two recent occasions.

The court denied overnight access to protect the children from potential risk, granting generous daytime access instead, and ordered the father to pay costs of $1,200.

Following a lengthy family law trial involving issues of spousal support, child support, alienation, counselling orders, and other relief, the court determined costs between the parties.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, emphasizing that success is the primary factor in determining costs, but that unreasonable behaviour and settlement offers may also influence the outcome.

Although success was divided across most issues, the applicant was clearly successful on the significant issue of parental alienation, resulting in a monetary penalty against the respondent.

Settlement offers exchanged before trial were considered but neither party achieved a result as favourable as their offers.

The court awarded the applicant partial costs attributable primarily to the alienation issue.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the court addressed issues of child support, spousal support, and parental alienation.

The court found that the respondent father had intentionally alienated the two younger children from the applicant mother, using police and child protection services to drive a wedge between them.

The father was found in contempt of an access order and fined $4,000.

The court imputed income to both parties, finding the mother intentionally under-employed by working 4.5 days a week, and the father intentionally under-employed by taking a 40% pre-retirement income reduction to avoid spousal support.

The court ordered the mother to pay child support for the two younger children living with the father, and ordered the father to pay compensatory spousal support to the mother, with step-downs leading to his retirement.