Marc Coderre

The parties sought costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant mother sought $8,398.27 in costs, while the respondent father sought $18,146.03.

The court found that success was divided, with the father being only slightly more successful but having engaged in some unreasonable litigation conduct.

Considering all circumstances, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The mother brought an application for a parenting order, and the father was noted in default.

The matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the 11-year-old child, with the father having alternate weekend parenting time during the school year and shared parenting in the summer.

The court also granted a divorce and awarded the mother $2,000 in costs, while adjourning the newly raised issue of child support to a later date.

In a Motion to Change proceeding, the moving party sought to file a reply affidavit after the responding party delivered a 340-page affidavit shortly before the hearing.

The responding party objected, arguing the Family Law Rules do not explicitly authorize reply affidavits on Motions to Change.

The court held that while the Rules do not explicitly authorize a right of reply, it is common practice and necessary for fairness, especially given the responding party's late filing and the long delay caused by the pandemic.

The moving party was permitted to file a reply affidavit limited to new matters.

The applicant father brought a motion to restore equal shared parenting time, while the respondent mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making authority following unverified allegations of inappropriate touching by the father's older son.

The court found discrepancies in the mother's evidence regarding the separation date and the allegations.

Given the children's school registration and the distance between the parents' residences, the court ordered that the children reside primarily with the mother during the week and with the father on weekends, pending an investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Following a successful motion regarding parenting time and child support, the applicant sought costs of $6,020.64.

The respondent argued financial hardship.

The court considered the respondent's litigation conduct, offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the fees incurred.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $5,000 at a rate of $100 per month, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2009 final order regarding equalization, alleging a mistake in the valuation of her pension.

The applicant claimed her actuary was provided incorrect information regarding her pension buyback status, resulting in an overvaluation of her pension and a lower equalization payment from the respondent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the pension administrator provided the incorrect information to the actuary, and concluding that the mistake was not mutual and did not negate the common intention of the parties at the time of the settlement.

The applicant brought a motion for interim relief regarding parenting time, child support, and life insurance.

The respondent, who was self-represented and had not filed responding materials, requested an adjournment, which the court denied due to delay and lack of prejudice.

The court maintained the status quo for parenting time exchanges and ordered the respondent to disclose his life insurance details.

For child support, the court included the respondent's CERB and RRSP income in his 2020 income, setting child support at $478 per month and ordering the payment of arrears.

The applicant father brought a motion for primary residence and temporary decision-making authority for the parties' 16-month-old child, as well as supervised parenting time for the respondent mother.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence and unsupervised parenting time.

Both parties alleged abusive conduct and mental health issues against the other.

The court found cogent evidence that the child's safety was at risk in the mother's unsupervised care due to her mental health struggles, including suicidal ideation and blackouts.

The court granted the father temporary primary residence and final decision-making authority, and ordered the mother to have supervised parenting time and undergo a psychological evaluation.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' child attend school online due to COVID-19 concerns and a finding of contempt against the father for unilaterally registering the child for in-person attendance.

The father brought a cross-motion for the child to attend in-person and take the school bus.

Applying the Zinati factors, the court found it was in the child's best interests to attend school in-person and take the bus, as there was no evidence of unacceptable risk to the child or family members.

However, the court found the father breached the joint custody order by acting unilaterally and ordered him to pay the mother's costs for the contempt motion.

The parties separated following an incident leading to the father's arrest for assault.

The children remained with the mother.

The father brought an interim motion seeking shared custody and equal parenting time, relying on the maximum contact principle.

The mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the status quo and sought child support.

The court dismissed the father's request for equal parenting time, finding that modifying the long-standing interim regime before trial was not in the children's best interests.

The court ordered the father to pay child support of $890 per month and directed pro rata sharing of special expenses.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's urgent motion and the applicant's cross-motion regarding the net proceeds from the sale of a home, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found the applicant was the successful party overall, though the respondent achieved divided success on an initial appearance.

Taking into account the respondent's unreasonable litigation behaviour, including late service of materials and raising unwarranted procedural hurdles, the court awarded the applicant costs of $6,000.

Following a decision on interim motions regarding spousal support, child support, and financial disclosure, the court considered the issue of costs.

Both parties had brought motions and achieved divided success.

The court reviewed the offers to settle and the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Given the divided success, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

Addendum to a prior decision on a family law motion addressing spousal support obligations.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant $1,000 per month in spousal support effective December 2, 2015.

As a consequence of the support order, the respondent’s life insurance obligations were reduced accordingly.

The decision clarifies the operative support amount following the earlier motion ruling.

The respondent brought a motion under s. 17 of the Divorce Act to vary a 2006 spousal support order following his retirement from federal government employment.

The original order required payment of $2,000 per month in non‑compensatory spousal support after a 30‑year marriage with no children and included division of the payor’s pension through equalization.

The court found that the payor’s impending retirement and resulting 55% income reduction constituted a material change in circumstances.

While the payee continued to experience economic hardship and had health limitations affecting employability, the court found insufficient efforts toward self‑sufficiency and inadequate use of equalized assets.

Balancing the payor’s reduced income, the payee’s ongoing need, and principles against double recovery from pension assets, the court reduced the support obligation.