Nolan Wilson

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial involving divorce, parenting, and child support.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by prolonging the trial with unproven allegations of domestic violence, thereby disentitling herself to costs and exposing herself to paying a portion of the applicant's costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the applicant.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a highly conflictual relationship.

The mother made multiple allegations of domestic violence against the father, which the court found lacked credibility and corroborating evidence.

The court determined that the parents' mistrust and negative feelings were harming the children.

The court granted a divorce, awarded sole decision-making responsibility to the mother with a requirement to consult the father, and established a detailed parenting time schedule.

The father was ordered to pay child support and the parties were ordered to share section 7 expenses equally.

The court determined the costs of an appeal and related motions in a family law matter.

The respondent/appellant was successful on the appeal and sought costs of over $42,000.

The applicant/respondent in appeal argued she should not pay costs due to financial disparity and the impact on their child.

The court found the applicant's litigation conduct unreasonable but held the respondent's claimed costs were disproportionate to the amount at stake.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant father appealed a costs order made following a summary judgment motion that dismissed the respondent mother's claims for retroactive and ongoing extraordinary child expenses.

The mother sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding her financial inability to pay costs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it incomplete and not determinative.

On the merits of the appeal, the court found the motion judge erred in concluding there was divided success and in failing to apply the presumptive costs consequences of rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules given the father's better offers to settle.

The appeal was allowed and costs of the summary judgment motion were fixed at $16,126.29 in favour of the father.