Mark P. Shelston

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a trial where the parties could not agree.

The applicant sought costs, arguing she was the successful party, while the respondent claimed divided success and financial hardship.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, having prevailed on major issues including custody, income imputation, child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court also found the respondent's conduct, including attempts to mislead the court regarding his income and assets, amounted to bad faith.

Considering the Family Law Rules, offers to settle, trial positions, and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour, the court fixed costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $60,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant and respondent sought a court order to determine which French elementary school their child, Dezmond, should attend commencing September 2018.

The applicant proposed l’École élémentaire catholique Au Coeur d’Ottawa, while the respondent proposed l’École élémentaire et secondaire publique Maurice-Lapointe.

The court considered the child's best interests, including parental involvement, commute times, and the quality of education, ultimately ruling in favour of the applicant's proposed school due to significantly less travel burden on the child and the applicant.

The applicant sought divorce, spousal support (retroactive, quantum, duration, security), repayment of $36,028.69, and removal from a corporation.

The court granted the divorce, found the applicant entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, and ordered retroactive and ongoing periodic support based on imputed income for the respondent.

The court dismissed the claims for security for support and removal from the corporation.

The respondent's credibility was significantly undermined throughout the proceedings.

This case involved a family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following the parties' separation and divorce.

The court made strong adverse credibility findings against the respondent due to evasiveness and contradictions in his testimony and financial disclosure.

The applicant was granted sole custody of the child with final decision-making authority, and the respondent's income was imputed at $150,000 for support purposes.

The court ordered child support and periodic spousal support, and an equalization payment from the respondent to the applicant.

Requests for lump sum spousal support and a restraining order against the respondent were denied.

This is a costs endorsement following a prior motion in a family law matter.

The applicant sought costs, arguing she was substantially more successful on the main issue of the respondent's income imputation, which impacted child and spousal support.

The respondent argued for divided success and that each party should bear their own costs or receive a substantial discount.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party on the most significant issue and that the respondent's conduct, including non-compliance with financial disclosure and failure to pay support, was unreasonable, though it did not amount to bad faith.

The court awarded the applicant $12,000 in costs, inclusive of HST.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to terminate spousal support and rescind arrears due to a significant reduction in his income.

The court found a material change in circumstances and applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to vary the quantum to $81 per month from January 2017 to May 2018.

Spousal support was ordered terminated effective May 1, 2018, representing the maximum 15-year duration under the SSAG, but the court declined to rescind arrears accrued prior to December 31, 2016.

The applicant sought a divorce, child and spousal support, equalization of net family property, and costs in an uncontested trial after the respondent's answer was struck.

The court imputed an income of $78,600 to the respondent due to his failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court calculated retroactive child support, resulting in the applicant owing the respondent for overpayments, which were offset against the respondent's retroactive spousal support arrears.

The court ordered the respondent to pay ongoing indexed spousal support of $1,070 per month, an equalization payment of $6,196, and $4,000 in costs.

The parties brought cross-motions for temporary relief regarding child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court found the respondent's declared income of approximately $30,000 lacked credibility given his past business operations, spending patterns, and a previous consent order imputing his income at $100,000.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the respondent and imputed an income of $20,000 (increasing to $28,000) to the applicant, who was operating a home-based hair salon.

The court ordered temporary child and spousal support based on these imputed incomes retroactive to August 2017, but dismissed the applicant's claims for section 7 expenses due to insufficient evidence.

This was a family law costs decision following a trial involving income determination, child support, spousal support, equalization, and a claim under a Mahr.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, found divided success but concluded the respondent was the more successful party when the offers to settle, trial positions, and ultimate result were considered.

Allegations of bad faith and unreasonable conduct were rejected.

Costs were fixed at $30,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, and $160,000 held in the applicant's counsel's trust account was ordered paid to the respondent forthwith against the sums owing under the trial judgment.

In a family law trial following a 15-year marriage, the court determined the equalization of net family property and the methodology for its payment.

The father claimed occupation rent, which was dismissed as it was not pled and lacked an evidentiary basis.

The court calculated the equalization payment owed by the father to the mother at $144,934.47.

The court ordered the father to satisfy this payment via a pension rollover, grossed up for taxes, while the mother was ordered to pay the father $128,560 for his equity in the matrimonial home.

The father's request to force the sale of the matrimonial home was dismissed, as he was no longer a co-owner and the sale was not required to satisfy an equalization payment.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's answer and claim for failing to pay a prior costs award of $34,968.42, and sought security for costs.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to dismiss.

The court noted that striking pleadings in family law cases involving children should only be done in exceptional circumstances.

The court adjourned the motion to strike to allow the respondent time to pay the costs award, warning that failure to comply would result in pleadings being struck.

The request for security for costs was dismissed, but improper references to settlement offers in the respondent's affidavit were struck.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage with four children.

The father, a denturist with his own business, sought sole custody and child support, while the mother sought spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court determined the parties' respective incomes, declining to impute income to the mother for pursuing a Master's degree and finding the father's income to be $90,000 based on a mortgage application.

The court ordered the father to pay an equalization payment of $110,666.79, plus $56,498.62 owing under a Maher contract, which was found to be a valid and enforceable civil contract.

The father was also ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim support, and a restraining order following the parties' separation.

The youngest child had been experiencing severe mental health issues and suicidal ideation related to the separation.

The court granted the mother exclusive possession of the home to provide stability for the child, deferred the support issues while ordering the father to pay specific home expenses, and dismissed the request for a restraining order due to insufficient evidence.

Following a 12-day family law trial regarding custody, access, and support, the parties could not agree on costs.

The mother sought costs of over $130,000, arguing she was the successful party and had made reasonable offers to settle.

The self-represented father argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the mother was the more successful party and that her offers to settle were reasonable and better than the trial outcome on several key issues.

The court also noted the father's lack of preparation unnecessarily extended the trial.

The court fixed costs at $60,000 payable by the father to the mother.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support and contribution to special expenses.

The parties had previously executed a comprehensive separation agreement that terminated spousal support on January 1, 2017.

The applicant argued the agreement was unfair and failed to meet the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The court dismissed the motion for temporary spousal support, finding insufficient evidence to conduct a stage II Miglin analysis on an interim basis, noting the applicant's current income and that her financial difficulties largely stemmed from a failed business venture.

The father brought a motion to change seeking joint custody, equal parenting time with the youngest child, and variations to child and spousal support.

The mother sought sole custody, imputation of income to the father, and retroactive child support and section 7 expenses.

The court granted the mother sole custody of all children, finding the parents' high-conflict relationship precluded joint custody.

The court imputed an annual income of $60,000 to the father due to intentional underemployment and ordered him to pay table child support and his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The court also varied spousal support payable by the mother to the father based on a material change in circumstances and nullified an unauthorized transfer of the father's corporate shares.

Following a successful motion by the applicant father to return the child to a specific school catchment area, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full or substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour in unilaterally changing the child's school.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably but not in bad faith.

Considering the respondent's limited ability to pay and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the applicant $8,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought costs after successfully defending a motion brought by the respondent regarding an alleged final agreement.

The applicant claimed up to $36,764.57 in full recovery costs.

The respondent argued the applicant should be sanctioned for improperly submitting documents to the judge after the hearing had concluded.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party.

While noting the applicant's post-hearing communications were improper, the court declined to impose a sanction because the late documents were not considered.

Finding the applicant's docketed time excessive, the court awarded a lump sum of $20,000 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

Following a trial regarding spousal support and equalization, both parties sought costs of $50,000, claiming they were the more successful party based on their respective offers to settle.

The court found that the applicant was the more successful party overall, having succeeded on the primary and most time-consuming issue of spousal support, as well as life insurance, while the respondent succeeded on equalization.

Finding the respondent's position denying spousal support unreasonable, the court awarded the applicant costs of $30,000.

The applicant father sought costs following a successful motion regarding the children's school attendance.

He claimed costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to an offer to settle.

The respondent mother argued against a costs award, citing her limited financial means and reasonable behaviour.

The court found the applicant's docketed hours excessive but acknowledged his entitlement to costs based on his successful offer to settle.

Considering the mother's limited means and the principle of proportionality, the court fixed costs at $8,000, payable within 60 days of a final order in the ongoing family law proceedings.