3 total
Costs of $15,000 awarded to successful party on child support motion, enforceable as support order.
The respondent was entirely successful on motions regarding parenting time and child support, and sought costs of $25,493.
The applicant opposed the quantum, citing his recent job loss and limited financial means.
The court found the applicant had behaved unreasonably by refusing to pay voluntary child support, forcing a needless motion.
Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $15,000, allowing the applicant to pay in monthly installments, and ordered the costs enforceable by the Director as a support order.
Mother granted primary care and table child support; father's request for equal parenting time denied due to family violence.
The parties brought cross-motions for interim parenting and child support orders regarding their 26-month-old child.
The father sought equal parenting time and set-off child support, while the mother sought primary care and table child support, alleging a history of family violence.
The court found the mother was the primary caregiver and accepted her evidence of the father's aggressive and threatening behaviour.
The court ordered the child to remain in the mother's primary care with specified parenting time for the father.
The father was ordered to pay table child support and his proportionate share of daycare expenses, with income imputed to him following a recent job loss.
The court ordered the child to attend a local public school and implemented a revised parenting schedule to reduce exchanges.
This case addresses two motions concerning a child's schooling for Junior Kindergarten and a revised parenting schedule.
The court rejected the mother's proposal for a private religious school due to insufficient admissible evidence and potential parental conflict, ordering the child to attend Annandale Public School.
Regarding parenting time, the court maintained the existing time allocation (approximately 60% with the mother, 40% with the father) but implemented a new bi-weekly schedule to reduce the frequency of exchanges, rejecting both parents' proposals for substantial changes.
The decision emphasized the child's best interests, particularly emotional and psychological well-being, and the importance of admissible evidence on motions.
