3 total
No costs were awarded due to extraordinary litigation circumstances and the child's best interests.
A costs decision in a family law matter concerning decision-making responsibility for a child.
The parties initially reached a mediated agreement in December 2021, which was rejected by the court due to concerns regarding family violence.
Following an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation and trial commencement, the parties reached a consent agreement on the third day of trial providing for joint decision-making responsibility with consultation requirements and dispute resolution mechanisms.
The respondent sought costs as the successful party, while the applicant opposed costs on grounds of financial hardship and the extraordinary circumstances.
The court declined to award costs, finding that the unusual circumstances, including the court's rejection of the initial consent agreement and the OCL's strong support for the applicant's position, compelled the applicant to proceed with litigation, and that awarding costs would be contrary to the child's best interests.
The court dismissed the husband's motion to vary temporary spousal support, finding the factual disputes required a trial.
The husband brought a motion to vary a temporary spousal support order, seeking a reduction due to the alleged end of his contract employment and his intention to pursue farming.
The wife opposed the motion, arguing that the husband failed to prove the unavailability of further contracts and that his credibility was questionable.
The court dismissed the husband's motion, finding that he did not meet the test for varying a temporary order, particularly regarding material change, hardship, urgency, and clean hands.
The court emphasized that complex factual and credibility issues, including the husband's income, health, and the appropriate length of the relationship for support calculations, were best reserved for a full trial, which the parties had delayed.
Court declines to impute income from temporary sex work on public policy grounds; shared parenting ordered.
The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary shared parenting, child support, and spousal support.
The applicant father initially opposed overnight parenting time but later agreed to a shared schedule.
The court ordered a 2-2-5-5 shared parenting schedule.
On the issue of support, the father argued the mother's income should be imputed at $80,000 based on her recent earnings as a virtual sex worker.
The court declined to impute this income on public policy grounds, as doing so would effectively compel her to remain in the sex trade, and instead imputed part-time minimum wage income of $14,000.
The father was ordered to pay interim child support of $1,143 per month and interim spousal support of $850 per month.
