Louise A. Scrivener

The applicant sought temporary child and spousal support, while the respondent cross-moved to impute income to the applicant and to calculate his income excluding certain non-cash and bonus components.

The parties shared parenting time equally.

The court declined to impute income to the applicant, finding she was not intentionally under-employed given her ongoing efforts to find work and her historical role as primary caregiver.

The court used the respondent's line 150 income of $217,007 to calculate temporary support, ordering him to pay $2,776 monthly in child support and $3,916 monthly in spousal support pending trial.

Following a family law motion concerning children’s schooling and daycare arrangements, the largely successful party sought a costs award.

The court applied the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the relative success of the parties, the parties’ conduct, offers to settle, and their respective financial circumstances.

Although the moving party sought full indemnity costs exceeding $13,000, the court considered that an earlier offer to settle could have resolved the issues and that the responding party had limited means.

Balancing these considerations, the court awarded a reduced costs amount.