Ozlem Eskiciolu

This is a costs endorsement following a prior motion in a family law matter.

The applicant sought costs, arguing she was substantially more successful on the main issue of the respondent's income imputation, which impacted child and spousal support.

The respondent argued for divided success and that each party should bear their own costs or receive a substantial discount.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party on the most significant issue and that the respondent's conduct, including non-compliance with financial disclosure and failure to pay support, was unreasonable, though it did not amount to bad faith.

The court awarded the applicant $12,000 in costs, inclusive of HST.

The parties brought cross-motions for temporary relief regarding child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The court found the respondent's declared income of approximately $30,000 lacked credibility given his past business operations, spending patterns, and a previous consent order imputing his income at $100,000.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the respondent and imputed an income of $20,000 (increasing to $28,000) to the applicant, who was operating a home-based hair salon.

The court ordered temporary child and spousal support based on these imputed incomes retroactive to August 2017, but dismissed the applicant's claims for section 7 expenses due to insufficient evidence.