Marc J. Coderre

The applicant sought full recovery costs after an interim order granted her significant child and spousal support, a non-depletion order, and other relief, based on the respondent's significantly higher income.

The respondent argued for divided success.

The court found the applicant more successful on major issues, particularly spousal support and the non-depletion order, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $2,500 to the applicant, considering the importance and complexity of issues, parties' behaviour, and counsel's reasonable rates.

The applicant wife sought interim child and spousal support, determination of Section 7 expenses, a non-depletion order against the husband's corporation, and financial disclosure.

The respondent husband disputed support quantum, sought income imputation for the wife, and opposed the non-depletion order.

The court determined the husband's income for support, declined to impute income to the wife, set ongoing child and spousal support, specified Section 7 expenses, issued a non-depletion order for $500,000 against the husband's corporation, and ordered specific financial disclosure.

Retroactive support claims were reserved for trial.

The Applicant sought costs following a motion for child support, while the Respondent also sought costs.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, their behaviour, and the Family Law Rules.

The Applicant's offer was less favourable than the final order, and her expectations were deemed unrealistic.

The Respondent's offer was closer to the final order but did not meet formal requirements.

The Respondent was found to have breached a prior divorce order by failing to provide financial disclosure, leading to the Applicant incurring legal costs.

Considering both parties' conduct, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive and ongoing child support, and a sharing of special and extraordinary expenses.

The court determined the father's income for support purposes by adding back capital cost allowance for real property and unreasonably deducted home-use expenses.

Retroactive child support was ordered from 2009, based on the date formal notice was provided, rather than 2007 as sought by the mother or 2010 as offered by the father.

Ongoing child support was set based on an imputed annual income of $100,000.

The parties were ordered to share section 7 expenses proportionally, but specific post-secondary expense orders were deferred due to a lack of evidence.

The father's failure to provide timely financial disclosure was noted as blameworthy conduct.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to find the applicant mother in contempt of a final order regarding a parenting schedule.

The father alleged the mother failed to revert to the original two-week rotation after a temporary four-week schedule, which he claimed was time-limited.

The court found no evidence that the agreed-upon change to the four-week rotation was time-limited and determined that once a change is agreed, it remains in effect until a further agreement or court order.

The motion for contempt was dismissed.

The court also provided guidance on parental cooperation regarding children's activities, emphasizing joint decision-making and ensuring children's attendance at activities.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking historical child support arrears and an order for the respondent father to add the children as beneficiaries to his employee benefits.

The father sought to suspend child support due to unemployment and argued for reduced support during periods when one child attended a residential school and during an alleged period of joint shared custody.

The court found that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances to reduce child support during the academic terms, distinguishing the case from situations involving adult children in post-secondary education and reaffirming that residential school attendance does not automatically trigger the 40% shared custody rule.

The court also found no agreement for joint custody during the disputed three-month period in 2014.

The father was ordered to pay $18,927 in arrears.

Issues regarding ongoing child support from January 2015 and annual review provisions were adjourned.

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.

The applicant mother brought a motion to determine whether Ontario had jurisdiction over her post-divorce application concerning the child's school placement.

The court held that s. 4 of the Divorce Act governed because the proceeding was a new corollary relief application rather than a variation motion, and the applicant was ordinarily resident in Ontario when she commenced it.

Because the Ontario proceeding was commenced first and had not been discontinued, Ontario had exclusive jurisdiction and the respondent father's later Quebec proceeding was deemed discontinued under s. 4(2).

The court further held that any request to transfer the matter to Quebec under s. 6 was premature because no Answer had yet been filed and the issue was not properly before the court.

On an interim family motion, the responding party sought joint shared custody while the applicant sought sole custody, primary parenting, support, section 7 contribution, property carrying costs, and related relief.

The court held that both parents were fit and devoted, that there was no established risk of harm to the children in either parent's care, and that the relevant status quo was the pre-tactical parenting arrangement rather than the short-lived supervised regime following criminal charges.

Applying the best interests of the children and maximum contact principles, the court imposed interim joint custody and an alternating-week parenting schedule.

The court also ordered interim child support, section 7 payments, contribution to matrimonial home carrying costs for a limited period, continued benefits coverage, ongoing assessment measures, and no costs.

Motion by a respondent to vary prior family law orders respecting parenting time, child support, and spousal support.

The court rejected both parties’ proposed parenting schedules due to impracticality arising from the father’s atypical work schedule and instead crafted a schedule tied to the father’s extended periods off work.

Child support was ordered to be calculated using the offset method due to variable parenting time.

The court found a material change in circumstances arising from changes in the parties’ incomes and terminated spousal support effective December 1, 2012.

The father was also ordered to reimburse half of specified daycare expenses and maintain a previously agreed equalization payment.

Following competing interim family law motions concerning parenting arrangements, schooling, extracurricular activities, and related issues, the court determined costs.

The parties achieved mixed success on the underlying motions, though the respondent father was found to have been more successful overall.

The court considered the presumptive entitlement to costs under the Family Law Rules, the absence of an offer to settle by the applicant mother, and the conduct of both parties during the litigation.

While both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct, the court concluded that partial indemnity costs were appropriate.

The father was awarded fixed costs payable by the mother.

Following settlement of family law issues prior to a settlement conference, the court was asked to determine entitlement to costs.

The applicant argued the respondent negotiated unreasonably throughout the litigation, causing delays and unnecessary legal expenses, while the respondent contended that the applicant prolonged the matter and rejected reasonable settlement offers.

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court examined the conduct of the parties, the reasonableness of settlement positions, and the progression of mediation and negotiations.

The court found the applicant consistently attempted to resolve the dispute reasonably and that the respondent could have avoided litigation by accepting earlier proposals.

Costs were therefore awarded to the applicant.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking primary residence of the parties’ two children, school changes, and enrollment of the son in a different hockey association.

The respondent father brought a cross‑motion seeking to maintain shared parenting arrangements, different school placements, and access orders consistent with a custody evaluation report.

The court found that both parents contributed to escalating conflict and that the mother had attempted to undermine the father’s relationship with the son, including encouraging school and extracurricular changes aligned with her new residence and partner.

Relying heavily on the custody evaluation report, the court maintained shared parenting for the daughter, ordered counselling to address the damaged father‑son relationship, and rejected the requested relocation of the son’s school and hockey program.

Multiple interim parenting directions were imposed, including restrictions on parental communications and prohibitions on criticizing the other parent in the children’s presence.

On an interim custody motion following separation, the father sought shared parenting while the mother sought to maintain the existing arrangement that limited the father’s parenting time.

The court considered the principle that interim orders should generally preserve the true status quo unless the child’s best interests require otherwise.

The judge found the relevant status quo was the parenting arrangement prior to the father being required to leave the matrimonial home, where both parents had significant involvement in caregiving.

Given the conflicting affidavit evidence and both parents’ demonstrated commitment to the child, the court ordered an interim shared parenting regime with alternating weeks.

The court also ordered that the child’s daycare not be changed pending further order and that daycare costs be shared equally.