Meagan LePage

This cost decision follows a focused trial on retroactive child support.

The court found the mother, Ms. Sorrenti, to be the most successful party and ordered the father, Mr. Thompson, to pay $18,000 in costs.

The decision details Mr. Thompson’s unreasonable litigation conduct, including failure to provide financial disclosure and forcing unnecessary motions, justifying a substantial indemnity award.

The court also considered Ms. Sorrenti’s conduct but found Mr. Thompson’s actions more blameworthy.

The cost award is deemed child support for enforcement purposes.

The court considered whether a retroactive child support award should be made against the father, Mark Thompson, for the years 2014 to 2023, in light of his failure to comply with annual financial disclosure obligations under a Parenting Agreement.

The court found that the father had not provided proper disclosure and had misled the mother, Vanessa Sorrenti, about his income, resulting in underpayment of child support.

The court ordered retroactive child support to be paid from January 1, 2014, and denied both parties' claims for contributions toward childcare and private tuition costs, finding both had failed in their disclosure obligations.

Pre-judgment interest was not awarded.

This is a continuation of a motion to vary child support provisions of a divorce judgment for adult children pursuing advanced post-secondary education.

The court determined the mother's continuing obligation for child support, adjusted base support retroactively based on income changes, and calculated extraordinary expenses for education.

It also addressed a significant overpayment by the mother, which is to be used as a credit against future obligations.

Support for one child (Étienne) was terminated, while support for the other (Jeanne) was continued under specific conditions.

The Applicant sought costs after successfully obtaining interim unsupervised expanded access in a prior motion.

The Respondent opposed, arguing divided success and financial hardship.

The Court found the Applicant was the successful party on the motion and that his offer to settle met the requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

Considering the parties' limited financial means and the principles of modern costs awards, the Court awarded the Applicant $2,500 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable in monthly installments.

The applicant father brought a motion for interim unsupervised access to the parties' 5-year-old child.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking to maintain supervised access, which had been in place following an investigation by the Children's Aid Society and police into her allegations of inappropriate behaviour by the applicant.

The investigation concluded with no safety concerns verified.

The court found that the relevant status quo was the liberal access that existed prior to the unverified allegations, not the restrictive supervised access regime that followed.

The court ordered interim unsupervised access for the applicant, gradually increasing to include overnights, and requested the involvement of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary an interim access schedule and restrict the applicant mother from moving the children out of their school catchment area.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking interim sole custody, additional access terms, imputed income for child support, and the pre-trial sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no material change in circumstances.

The court granted the applicant's cross-motion, awarding her interim sole custody due to the parties' inability to communicate effectively.

The court also imputed an income of $30,000 to the respondent due to intentional under-employment, ordered the pre-trial sale of the matrimonial home under the Partition Act, and granted the requested access terms and procedural relief.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking an increase in child support, while the respondent mother sought to terminate support for their two adult children pursuing master's and PhD degrees.

The court held that given the family's high income and academic expectations, the children remained dependents entitled to support.

However, the court ruled that once a child moves away from home, monthly support should be reduced and all living expenses treated as extraordinary expenses, offset by the child's own resources.

The court also applied a three-year average to the mother's fluctuating professional income.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion where the Father sought an order for the Mother to return to Ottawa with their child and for interim access.

The court denied the relocation request, finding the Father had acquiesced to the move to Toronto.

However, the court granted the Father significantly more generous interim access than proposed by the Mother.

Considering the mixed success on the motion and the Father's offer to settle, which was less favourable to him than the final order on access, the court awarded the Father $2,000 in costs.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the return of the respondent mother and their infant child to Ottawa from Toronto, and for interim access.

The mother had relocated to Toronto to pursue a PhD program.

The court found that the father had acquiesced to the move, establishing a new status quo.

Applying the principles of interim mobility and the best interests of the child, the court declined to order the child's return to Ottawa.

However, to ensure maximum contact, the court ordered a generous interim access schedule for the father, including alternate weekends and shared holidays, with the mother bearing a significant portion of the travel responsibilities.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a prior custody, access, and child support order.

He sought a reduction in child support due to long‑term disability benefits and changes to access arrangements after the child’s relocation to Ottawa.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the father's reduced income and varied the child support obligation retroactively and prospectively.

The court also restructured access to account for the child living in Ottawa while facilitating meaningful parenting time.

Child support was reduced and the father received a retroactive credit subject to adjustments for section 7 expenses.

The respondent mother opposed enforcement of Minutes of Settlement that granted the father unsupervised weekend access to a young child.

The father sought a court order enforcing the agreement, arguing the mother had to establish a material change in circumstances.

The court held that where custody and access terms arise from an agreement not incorporated into a court order, the proper framework is the child’s best interests rather than a material change analysis.

Considering concerns about the father’s alleged drug involvement, lack of recent contact with the child, and safety issues, the court found the agreement was not presently in the child’s best interests.

The court granted the mother custody and ordered the father to have supervised access pending further investigation.