Michael Walz

Following a successful motion brought by the applicant, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis, while the respondent argued that no costs should be ordered.

The court held that although the applicant succeeded, the respondent’s position was not entirely without merit and there was no egregious conduct justifying full indemnity costs.

Taking into account the complexity of the motion, the preparation required, and certain duplication of work by counsel, the court awarded partial indemnity costs with limited recoverable work.

The applicant father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his two children, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for child support, an order securing the father's personal injury settlement funds, and leave to amend her pleadings.

The court granted the father unsupervised daytime access, finding that he had successfully managed his chronic pain and prescription drug dependency.

The court dismissed the mother's request to secure the settlement funds, noting no history of asset dissipation or failure to pay support.

The mother was permitted to amend her pleadings to add a Family Law Act claim, and the father was ordered to pay interim child support based on a notional income derived from his settlement funds.

The respondent husband brought a motion to set aside Minutes of Settlement and a subsequent court order, arguing he lacked capacity, the applicant wife failed to disclose her pension, and the agreement was unconscionable.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the husband understood the agreement, the wife had disclosed the pension, and the settlement was not unconscionable as it reflected a fairly negotiated compromise between the parties.

The appellant father appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice dismissing his motion to terminate child support and instead increasing support for an adult child enrolled in full-time education.

The trial judge applied s. 3(2)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines and ordered table child support based on the father’s income, finding insufficient evidence to conduct a s. 3(2)(b) analysis regarding the child’s needs and means.

The appellant argued errors relating to disclosure, the child’s refusal to communicate with him, failure to consider disability benefits, and failure to impute income to the mother.

The appellate court held that the trial judge properly exercised discretion, correctly placed the evidentiary burden on the party seeking termination, and made no palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed.