3 total
The successful mother in a relocation trial was awarded $36,000 in costs, with partial recovery for second counsel fees.
This decision addresses the issue of costs following a trial concerning parenting and child support, where the mother was permitted to relocate with the child to Wisconsin.
The court applied the amended Family Law Rules regarding costs, including the technical requirements for offers to settle under subrule 24(12).
The mother was found the successful party and entitled to costs, but the court carefully analyzed the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs claimed, including the claim for second counsel.
The court awarded costs of $36,000 to the mother, payable monthly, considering the father's financial ability and the conduct of both parties.
Father granted modestly increased parenting time including mid-week overnights; court finds no disruption to child.
The applicant father brought a motion for increased parenting time with the parties' four-year-old child.
The respondent mother opposed the extent of the proposed increase, arguing that mid-week overnight access would be disruptive.
The court applied the best interests of the child factors under the Divorce Act and found that a modest increase in overnight parenting time, including mid-week overnights, was appropriate given the parents' proximity, flexible work schedules, and the child's need for maximum contact with both parents.
The father was awarded costs of $5,000.
Leave to appeal interlocutory property‑preservation order denied.
The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order preserving one‑half of the proceeds of sale of a property pending trial of a constructive trust and unjust enrichment claim between former common‑law partners.
The moving party argued the motion judge erred by referring to the parties as married and by referencing equalization payments despite the parties not being legally married.
The court held that the motion judge correctly understood the claim as one grounded in constructive trust and unjust enrichment and properly applied the interlocutory injunction test under s. 12(b) of the Family Law Act to preserve property.
The court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and concluded the proposed appeal raised no issue of general or public importance.
The court also ordered temporary guideline child support based on the payor’s Employment Insurance income and declined to order retroactive support due to insufficient evidence.
