Melissa Jeanette Fedsin

This is a costs decision following a 10-day matrimonial trial.

The applicant, Ian David Kirby, sought substantial costs from the self-represented respondent, Katherine Lynn Kirby.

The court found Ian to be more successful overall in the underlying trial and that Katherine's conduct, including prolonging the hearing and making unreasonable allegations, warranted a costs award against her.

While acknowledging Katherine's mental illness, the court determined that her unreasonableness contributed significantly to the litigation's length and expense.

The court awarded the applicant $150,000 in all-inclusive costs, representing an enhanced substantial indemnity recovery (approximately 78% of his post-2016 actual costs), to be paid from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

This case involved a 17-year-long family law dispute between separated spouses, Ian and Katherine, addressing divorce, spousal support (retroactive and ongoing), child support (retroactive and ongoing, including section 7 expenses), equalization of net family property (including pension), occupation rent, and the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted a divorce, dismissed Katherine's claims for retroactive spousal support and increased ongoing support, but ordered Ian to continue paying $1000/month until Katherine's 65th birthday.

Claims for retroactive and future child support by Ian were dismissed, as were claims for occupation rent and reimbursement of post-separation expenses by both parties.

Ian was ordered to pay Katherine an equalization payment of $4824.92.

The court also ordered that all outstanding costs awards against Katherine be paid from her share of the matrimonial home proceeds, with her remaining share held in trust.

The judge noted the respondent's difficult conduct throughout the trial and her significant health issues.

A costs decision arising from a motion regarding jurisdiction and access enforcement in a family law matter involving child custody and relocation.

The respondent father sought to enforce the Ontario Court's jurisdiction over access issues pending his relocation to Nova Scotia, as established in a prior consent order.

The applicant mother challenged this jurisdiction and commenced a simultaneous application in Nova Scotia.

The court awarded costs to the respondent father on the jurisdiction issue, finding the applicant's conduct unreasonable, while declining to award costs on the access issues where success was divided and ultimately resolved by consent.

The applicant mother brought a motion to stay an order of Justice Flaherty dated August 30, 2013, which changed the primary residence of the child from a shared parenting arrangement to the respondent father in Hamilton, reducing the mother's access to one evening per week and alternate weekends.

The mother alleged procedural unfairness due to the trial judge's hearing difficulties, misapprehension of evidence, and failure to give proper weight to the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendations.

The court granted the stay, finding a serious issue for appeal, irreparable harm to the child, and that the balance of convenience favored the child's return to her mother's primary care in Oakville pending the appeal.