Lorna F. Baldwin

The applicant sought costs following a trial regarding parenting time.

At the start of the trial, the respondent brought a summary judgment motion which the applicant successfully opposed, though the court found his communication regarding settlement was unreasonable and denied him costs for the motion.

The trial proceeded on parenting time, and the applicant achieved a better result than the respondent's offers to settle.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $9,119.27.

The court considered costs following a motion to change regarding child and spousal support and share transfer.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing success and the Respondent's bad faith regarding income imputation.

The Respondent disputed success, citing the Applicant's disclosure delays and unreasonable income positions.

The court found divided success, noting both parties' unreasonableness in litigation conduct, including the Applicant's delayed disclosure and misstated income, and the Respondent's late amendment of her income position.

Neither party achieved a more favourable outcome than their offers to settle.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs.

The applicant sought to vary child and spousal support provisions of a separation agreement and to impute income to the respondent.

The respondent opposed, arguing no material change of circumstances and seeking to impute income to the applicant.

The court found a material change of circumstances due to the applicant's career change and significant income reduction.

The court imputed income to the applicant at $58,000 for 2014-2016, increasing to $73,000 for 2017, finding his decision to start a business without experience unreasonable.

The court also imputed income to the respondent at $20,000 for 2017, finding her under-employed.

Retroactive and ongoing support adjustments were ordered based on these imputed incomes.

Costs decision following a motion to vary an existing order for child support and spousal expenses in a family law proceeding.

The responding party sought $2,500 in costs after successfully obtaining a variation of the order.

The moving party argued that no costs should be awarded because she was successful on the issue of special expenses for orthodontic work.

The court held that success was divided but recognized that the responding party had succeeded in varying the order.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the responding party, to be deducted from existing child support arrears owed.

Following a contested family law motion involving interim custody and related relief, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party had been found substantially successful on the motion and sought full indemnity costs exceeding $17,000, arguing the responding party acted unreasonably by rejecting the recommendations of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and the wishes of the teenage children.

The court held that although the moving party was substantially successful, the responding party’s opposition was not unreasonable given conflicting affidavit evidence and legitimate issues requiring adjudication.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Court Rules, the court reduced the claimed amount and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Costs were fixed at $7,121.83 inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant father brought a contempt motion relating to the respondent mother's alleged failure to support the father's relationship with the parties' child following a prior custody decision establishing joint custody with the child’s primary residence with the mother.

The court found that both parents displayed ongoing animosity and engaged in conduct undermining the child’s relationship with the other parent.

Rather than making a finding of contempt, the court clarified and amended aspects of the prior order concerning holiday exchanges, weekend parenting time, communication between parent and child, travel arrangements between provinces, and the use of airline unaccompanied minor services.

The court emphasized the child’s best interests and the obligation of separated parents to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent.

The parties were invited to make written submissions on costs, with the court indicating that no costs order was likely given the conduct of both parties.