M. Greenstein

Following the dismissal of the mother's urgent motion regarding the children's school attendance, the successful father sought costs of $4,405.70.

The mother argued each party should bear their own costs or that the father's claim should be reduced.

Both parties had served offers to settle under Rule 18.

The court found the father was entitled to costs and that his lawyer's hourly rates were reasonable.

Considering Family Law Rules 18 and 24, the court awarded the father costs of $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a family law trial involving child support, spousal support, and net family property equalization, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court assessed which party achieved greater success and evaluated the parties’ settlement offers and litigation conduct.

The applicant obtained more favourable results on child support and s.7 expenses, while spousal support was not ordered due to her inability to pay.

Although success on property equalization was somewhat mixed, the applicant’s offer to settle was substantially closer to the trial outcome and the respondent’s offer was found unreasonable, particularly given his failure to propose any child support.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs.

Following earlier trial reasons and supplementary endorsements in a family law proceeding, the applicant brought an urgent post‑judgment motion concerning enforcement of property and financial orders arising from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent failed to participate or comply with several prior court orders.

The court approved short service, confirmed calculations regarding the sale proceeds, and ordered payment to the applicant from the proceeds with an additional shortfall payable by the respondent.

The court also ordered the respondent to transfer the family vehicle to the applicant and addressed issues relating to enforcement, declining to involve the Family Responsibility Office because the order was not related to support.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, including trial costs and full indemnity costs for post‑trial enforcement motions.

Following earlier reasons for decision that included alternative child support arrangements depending on the children's residence, the court issued a supplementary endorsement clarifying the operative support provisions.

It was confirmed that one child resided with the mother and the other with the father as of August 2012.

The court directed that the child support provisions contained in specified paragraphs of the previously signed judgment be enforced accordingly.

The clarification was provided to assist the Family Responsibility Office in enforcing the order.

A support deduction order was directed to issue.

Following a family law trial, the court issued a supplementary endorsement addressing clarification requests regarding earlier reasons for decision.

The judge explained the limited post‑trial jurisdiction and emphasized that the role was confined to clarifying the judgment to facilitate preparation of the final order.

The court reviewed the draft order prepared following trial and identified three corrections required to accurately reflect the reasons for decision, including clarification regarding child residence arrangements and the finding that no notional costs of sale were to be applied.

Administrative steps were also directed to process the divorce and to prepare an order involving the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

Following the release of reasons after a family law trial, counsel for the applicant and the self‑represented respondent sought clarification of several aspects of the judgment through correspondence.

The court clarified issues relating to the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, the production of automobile insurance information, the division of a pension at source, and the quantum and period of retroactive spousal support.

The court confirmed that a typographical error in the original reasons incorrectly referenced March 2012, clarifying that retroactive spousal support related to the period from March 2010 to August 31, 2012 with a lump‑sum shortfall payment ordered.

The court declined to address several issues raised by the respondent as they involved enforcement matters or issues not raised at trial.

The parties, who were still residing under one roof, sought resolution of their family law dispute following an arranged marriage in Syria.

The court determined the date of separation to be the date of service of legal process.

Due to the high conflict and lack of independent parenting plans, the court deferred final custody and access decisions, instead ordering the immediate listing of the matrimonial home for sale and setting a temporary parenting schedule.

The court calculated net family property, resulting in a nominal equalization payment from the applicant to the respondent, and ordered ongoing child and spousal support based on the respondent's employment income and income imputed to the applicant, along with $10,000 in retroactive spousal support.