Lucienne MacLauchlan

Following a contempt finding in a family law matter for failure to comply with an access order, the court addressed costs.

The responding party in the contempt motion sought full indemnity costs exceeding $12,000, while the opposing party argued for a substantially lower award.

The court reviewed the dockets, hourly rates, travel time, and the complexity of the motion, concluding that the time claimed was excessive.

Applying the principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court fixed a fair and reasonable costs award.

Costs of $6,000 were ordered payable by the party found in contempt.

The parties separated after a long-term marriage.

The applicant mother sought child and spousal support, alleging the respondent father under-reported his income from his plumbing business through cash sales and inflated expenses.

The respondent father alleged the applicant was intentionally underemployed after she left her job at Legal Aid Ontario following a malicious complaint he made against her.

The court found the applicant's career change to a paralegal was reasonable and imputed her income accordingly.

The court also found the respondent had significant unreported cash sales and unexplained business expenses, imputing a much higher income to him.

Retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and spousal support were ordered based on the imputed incomes.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the trial after discovering their counsel had been suspended by the Law Society.

The defendants sought costs thrown away for trial preparation.

The court declined to award costs at this stage, finding that the plaintiffs were blameless for the delay and that the trial judge would be in a better position to determine the issue of costs based on all circumstances, including whether the trial could have proceeded earlier to mitigate costs.