Mason Morningstar

Following a five-day family law trial where the respondent was entirely successful, the respondent sought full indemnity costs of $340,000 based on multiple offers to settle.

The applicant failed to file responding costs submissions despite court reminders.

The court found the applicant took unreasonable positions and failed to comply with financial disclosure obligations.

However, considering negative findings regarding the respondent's historical income and the high rates charged by counsel, the court fixed costs at $250,000 payable by the applicant, enforceable as a support order.

The parties, who cohabited for 15 months and had one child, separated in January 2021.

The applicant sought sole decision-making, relocation, and significant child and spousal support, alleging the respondent earned $900,000 annually from drug dealing.

The court ordered joint decision-making and denied the relocation, imposing a 10km geographic restriction.

The court imputed a high income to the respondent for 2021 based on lavish spending but declined to impute illegal income prospectively, setting his 2022/2023 income at minimum wage.

The applicant's income was imputed significantly higher for 2022/2023 based on bank deposits.

Spousal support was awarded for 2021 only.

After crediting the respondent for condo carrying costs and support overpayments, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $54,472.88.

The Applicant Mother brought a motion to strike the Respondent Father's pleadings and prohibit future filings due to his failure to pay child support arrears, non-payment of costs, and abusive behaviour, including vile text messages and breach of a restraining order.

The Respondent Father had also relocated to Tanzania while seeking primary residency of the child.

The court struck the Father's Notice of Motion due to his exceptional conduct of relocating to another continent while seeking residency.

The court also ordered that the Father may only file responding pleadings upon bringing his child support arrears and outstanding costs awards into good standing.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the Mother.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased interim parenting time with his six-year-old child, seeking additional overnights, earlier pick-up times, and extended summer access.

The respondent mother opposed any changes, arguing the status quo should be maintained until trial and that the father's proposed schedule would require a 45-minute commute to school.

The court rejected the mother's argument that changes must be deferred to trial, finding no need to prove urgency or a material change in circumstances for an interim order.

The court granted the father a Tuesday overnight, earlier pick-up times, extended time for PA days and statutory holidays, and additional summer weeks, but denied a Sunday overnight to avoid excessive commuting for the child.

The applicant paternal grandmother brought a motion for access to her nine-year-old granddaughter following the death of the child's father.

The respondent mother consented to virtual access for the grandmother but opposed the participation of the child's paternal aunt, citing concerns about being undermined.

Applying the Chapman framework, the court found that the aunt had a positive relationship with the child, the mother's decision to terminate access was arbitrary and stemmed from estate litigation rather than parenting concerns, and the mother's actions imperiled the relationship.

The court granted the motion, allowing the aunt to participate in the virtual access visits.