Maria G. Lucarelli

Following a 16-day family law trial regarding decision-making responsibility and parenting time, the respondent sought costs of $176,000 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued success was divided and no costs should be awarded.

The court found the respondent was the substantially successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

However, applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, and noting the trial was needlessly protracted, the court fixed the respondent's costs at $75,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The parties separated after a high-conflict breakdown of their marriage and could not agree on decision-making responsibility or a parenting time schedule for their two young children.

The applicant father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time structured around his firefighter shift schedule.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making and a continuation of the interim parenting schedule, which included daycare.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility to the mother, finding the parties could not communicate effectively enough for joint decision-making, but required her to consult the father on major decisions.

The court also ordered a parenting schedule similar to the interim order, providing the father with significant but not equal parenting time, finding that the consistency of the schedule and daycare was in the children's best interests.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion seeking to remove her survivor's benefit pension from Net Family Property (NFP) calculations and equalize it separately by setting it off against the respondent's monthly pension payments.

The respondent opposed this, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found it had no jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, s.10.1(5), to remove the applicant's survivor pension from NFP calculations because it was not "in pay" on the valuation date.

The court ordered the respondent's OMERS pension to be removed from his NFP calculation and divided equally at source, as both parties initially agreed for this pension.

The applicant's survivor pension was ordered to be included in her NFP calculation, leading to an equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent.

This decision addresses costs following a two-day trial initiated by the applicant's motion to change a separation agreement.

The respondent sought $37,500 in costs, while the applicant argued for no costs, claiming partial success.

The court found success was divided but noted the applicant's unreasonable conduct, including delayed disclosure and failure to attend mediation, significantly increased the respondent's legal expenses.

Consequently, the respondent was awarded $20,000 in costs, payable as support.

The Respondent sought costs for his successful motion for partition and sale and the Applicant's unsuccessful motions for exclusive possession and disclosure.

The Respondent requested $9,427.85, representing 83% of actual costs.

The Applicant argued for no costs or $1,500.

The court found the Respondent completely successful, applying the presumption of costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The Applicant's disclosure request was deemed a last-minute attempt to stall.

The court fixed costs at $7,500, ordering the Applicant to pay this amount to the Respondent.

The Respondent moved for partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, while the Applicant sought exclusive possession of the home and production of documentary evidence.

The court granted the partition and sale, finding no oppressive conduct by the Respondent and that the sale would not prejudice the Applicant's property rights under the Family Law Act, provided her share of proceeds was not frozen.

The Applicant's request for exclusive possession was denied, as there were no dependent children and the parties' financial positions were comparable.

The Applicant's disclosure request was deemed premature, while the Respondent's was satisfied.

The applicant sought a retroactive reduction in child support and section 7 expenses, including private school fees, due to a material change in his financial circumstances.

The respondent requested an order fixing child support and section 7 expense arrears and setting ongoing support.

The court determined the applicant's income for support purposes, including adjustments for foreign tax rates, and calculated significant child support and section 7 expense arrears.

It also set ongoing child support, adjusting for a child attending university away from home, and apportioned future special and extraordinary expenses based on the parties' proportional incomes.

The court noted the applicant's lack of transparency regarding his income changes.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for interim access to her child, who resided primarily with the respondent paternal grandmother.

The grandmother had suspended access due to the COVID-19 public health emergency.

The court found no evidence that children are particularly vulnerable to the virus and noted that access should continue as ordered provided emergency orders are followed.

The court ordered that parenting time resume in accordance with the parties' prior parenting agreement.

The applicant's motion to change was dismissed, and the respondent sought costs of $185,000 on a full indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and entitled to costs.

The court determined that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity scale, noting the complexity of the issues and the amount at stake.

After adjusting the hourly rates and reducing the time claimed for preparation and trial, the court fixed the respondent's costs at $134,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court determined costs following a 23.5-day family law trial and a 9.5-day contempt motion.

The respondent was successful on the contempt motion and was awarded $27,940 in costs.

The applicant was the overall successful party at trial and served a formal offer to settle that triggered full recovery costs for the latter portion of the litigation.

The applicant was awarded $99,100 in costs for the trial.

After setting off the amounts, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant a net costs award of $71,160.

The applicant sought to vary a spousal support order, arguing a material change due to the respondent's significantly increased income.

The respondent resisted, denying a material change or seeking a reduction.

The court found a material change in circumstances but dismissed the applicant's request for a substantial increase in fixed spousal support, upholding the original formula-based order.

The court also interpreted the definition of 'incentive employment income' for bonus calculations, finding only one minor item qualified.

The parties separated in 2010 after a high-conflict marriage.

The applicant mother was charged with assaulting one of the children in 2012, leading to a 21-month period of no contact and the respondent father assuming primary care.

Following reconciliation counselling, the mother sought equal time-sharing and parallel parenting, while the father sought sole custody.

The court found that both parents were capable but unable to communicate effectively due to intense conflict.

The court ordered a divided parallel parenting regime, allocating specific decision-making areas to each parent, and an equal time-sharing arrangement.

The court also resolved outstanding child and spousal support issues, ordering the father to pay a set-off amount of child support going forward and terminating spousal support after a transition period.

The parties were involved in a protracted, high-conflict family law trial regarding custody and access.

Pending the release of full reasons for judgment, the court issued an advance ruling on the issue of 2016 Christmas holiday time-sharing.

The applicant mother sought equal time-sharing over the holidays, while the respondent father sought to limit her time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court found that the mother had made significant strides in addressing past concerns and had re-established a meaningful bond with the children.

The court ordered that the 2016 Christmas school break be shared equally between the parties, structured to ensure the children spent no more than three consecutive overnights with the mother.

The applicant mother brought a motion to find the respondent father in contempt of three temporary supervised access orders.

The mother alleged the father engaged in a campaign of parental alienation and deliberately thwarted the implementation of her access to their two children.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the temporary orders in question had been superseded by a subsequent order and were no longer live and operative.

Furthermore, the court found that the father had not engaged in alienating behaviour, but rather acted out of legitimate protectiveness for the children's emotional well-being.

The court also concluded that the mother failed to use contempt as a remedy of last resort and that the father had taken reasonable steps to facilitate access.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following an interim motion where the respondent was successful on all issues, including spousal support, child support for an adult child, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs, relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the respondent entitled to full recovery costs after the offer to settle, but adjusted the claimed hourly rate from $400.00 to $350.00, disallowed travel time, and reduced claimed disbursements due to lack of specific receipts.

The court fixed costs at $8,486.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the applicant within 30 days.

The parties separated in 2012.

The respondent moved for interim spousal support, while the applicant moved for child support for their adult disabled child and the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The court granted the respondent interim spousal support of $1,500 per month, finding a prima facie case for entitlement based on the significant income disparity between the parties.

The court dismissed the applicant's motions for child support and the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, deferring both issues to trial.