Nadine Waldman

The father successfully moved to adjourn a family law trial after his lawyer was removed from the record.

The mother sought full indemnity costs of $6,251.68 for the motion and costs thrown away, relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the mother's offer did not trigger Rule 18 consequences because it included non-severable terms and a pre-determined costs component.

The court also declined to award costs thrown away due to a lack of particulars regarding wasted preparation.

Finding divided success on the motion, the court ordered no costs.

The applicant father, a civil litigation lawyer with no family law experience, sought to adjourn his family court trial to retain new counsel after his previous lawyer was removed from the record.

The respondent mother opposed a lengthy adjournment, emphasizing the need for timely resolution, particularly concerning the child's proposed relocation to Ireland and the upcoming school year.

The court granted a shorter adjournment than requested by the father, rescheduling the trial to June 2024, making it peremptory on the father, and conditionally delaying the sale of the matrimonial home to align with the new trial date, balancing the father's need for representation with the child's best interests and the mother's right to timely resolution.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant to travel with the parties' child without the respondent's consent.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably by withholding consent and sending profane texts, thereby forcing the applicant to bring the motion.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and considering the respondent's ability to pay, the court awarded the applicant costs at its "going rate" for such matters.

A party brought a motion seeking costs personally against his former lawyer under Rule 24(9) of the Family Law Rules after incurring significant expenses due to the lawyer’s failure to protect the party’s procedural rights in a family proceeding.

The lawyer had been retained while the client was already in default but failed to notify opposing counsel, file an answer, or take steps to secure consent or an order permitting late filing.

As a result, the opposing party proceeded toward an uncontested trial, causing unnecessary litigation steps and costs.

Applying the two‑stage analysis for costs against counsel, the court found the lawyer’s conduct negligently caused unnecessary costs and was inconsistent with the goals of the justice system.

The court exercised its discretion to order the lawyer personally to reimburse the client for $14,500 in costs.

Following a family law motion, the respondent mother sought full recovery costs based on an offer to settle made under Rule 18 and the general costs principles under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court compared the parties’ positions and the offer and found that the mother had been successful and that her offer justified full indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs at $11,000.

Due to the father’s financial circumstances and ongoing support obligations, the costs were ordered to be secured against his interest in the matrimonial home, with additional restrictions preventing him from depleting assets disclosed in his financial statement.

Interim family law motion addressing parenting schedule and child support following separation.

The father sought maximum contact with the parties’ three children, but the court found equal parenting time unrealistic due to the children’s ages, school locations, and the distance between the parents’ residences after the father relocated.

A temporary parenting schedule was ordered providing the father alternating weekends, mid‑week access, and additional overnight time with the youngest child.

The court also requested the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and ordered the father to pay table child support while both parties shared certain section 7 expenses.