Patricia Lucas

This decision addresses the costs of three motions heard on December 6, 2022, where the applicant was entirely successful.

The court dismissed two contempt motions brought by the respondent and granted the applicant's motion for disclosure.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs, while the respondent requested costs in his favour or a reduction/deferral of the applicant's claim.

The court found the applicant presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, rejecting the respondent's arguments as attempts to relitigate.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, finding the respondent's conduct not egregious enough, and determined that the offers to settle did not engage the rules for increased costs.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs, fixed at $9,040, payable by the respondent within 90 days.

Following a 28-year marriage, the parties sought resolution of financial issues including spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The applicant, who had been on disability income since 1990, sought compensatory support, an unequal division of property, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court ordered needs-based spousal support, calculating the respondent's income based on his gross commission earnings less reasonable business expenses.

The court denied the applicant's claims for retroactive support prior to the application date, unequal division of property, and exclusive possession, ordering the sale of the jointly owned properties and an equalization payment to the applicant.

The parties brought three competing motions in a family law proceeding, primarily dealing with financial disclosure and property issues.

The court ordered the applicant to provide specific financial documents, including an Equifax report, loan details, and a 2014 Notice of Assessment.

However, the court dismissed several requests regarding the valuation, repair, and sale of a jointly-owned 2010 Acura MDX, as well as the distribution of insurance proceeds, finding these to be triable issues related to the equalization of net family property that should not be dealt with on an interim motion.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The moving party mother brought a contempt motion against the responding party father for withholding her parenting time under a prior court order.

The father had discovered the mother unresponsive in bed with empty vodka bottles while the children were in her care, prompting him to remove the children and call 911.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the father's actions were justified, protective of the children, and not a willful or deliberate breach of the order given the mother's history of severe alcoholism.

The Applicant sought a temporary order for the return of children and re-establishment of their primary residence.

The Respondent opposed, seeking custody with supervised access for the Applicant, citing concerns about the Applicant's alcohol use, mental health, and a domestic violence incident involving her partner.

The court found the facts contested but ordered the children to reside with the parties more or less equally, with the Respondent returning the children to the Applicant forthwith.

A condition was imposed that the Applicant not permit contact between the children and her partner, Mark Korolenchuk.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was invited to participate, and costs were reserved.

The applicant brought a motion to vary existing access orders and requested a police enforcement clause, seeking access in his home instead of the current in-and-out arrangement in the matrimonial home.

The matter was referred to a triage judge under the COVID-19 protocol to determine urgency.

The court found the matter was not urgent, as the children's safety was not at risk.

The judge emphasized that parents should prioritize the children's best interests, follow Health Canada safety protocols, and avoid litigation during the pandemic.

The applicant's past actions regarding COVID-19 recommendations raised legitimate concerns for the respondent.

The motion was dismissed as not urgent.

The respondent mother brought a motion to stay the applicant father's motion to change his access from supervised to unsupervised.

A previous court order set out numerous preconditions the father had to meet before bringing such a motion, including completing parenting and anger management programs.

The court found that the father had not strictly complied with several of these preconditions.

As a result, the father's motion to change was stayed and his other procedural motions were dismissed.

The applicant sought costs following a 13-day family law trial.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party on several key issues, including the date of cohabitation, the validity of the Maher, and the Kevin Drive property.

The respondent's conduct regarding the Kevin Drive property, which involved transferring and selling it without the applicant's knowledge or consent, was deemed bad faith and a clear attempt to defraud the applicant of her rightful equalization payment.

While none of the parties' offers to settle met the criteria under Family Law Rule 18(14) for special consideration, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs, emphasizing the need to deter such egregious conduct, while still applying principles of fairness and reasonableness.

The respondent's claim for costs was dismissed.

Following a motion to vary child and spousal support where the applicant achieved mixed success, the respondent sought costs of up to $20,890.

The court noted that while the respondent made a reasonable offer to settle, she had previously resisted a reasonable request to terminate child support.

Given the divided success and the parties' conduct, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant moved to vary a 2012 order to terminate child and spousal support.

The court denied the applicant's request to amend pleadings at trial to seek earlier child support termination dates.

Child support was terminated on consent effective May 2016, and the respondent was ordered to pay $5,350 for her share of retroactive post-secondary education expenses.

The court dismissed the motion to terminate spousal support, finding that despite the respondent's conjugal relationship and increased income, her compensatory entitlement from the 20-year marriage had not yet been exhausted.

The court determined costs following a 23.5-day family law trial and a 9.5-day contempt motion.

The respondent was successful on the contempt motion and was awarded $27,940 in costs.

The applicant was the overall successful party at trial and served a formal offer to settle that triggered full recovery costs for the latter portion of the litigation.

The applicant was awarded $99,100 in costs for the trial.

After setting off the amounts, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant a net costs award of $71,160.

Following a successful motion for temporary joint custody and shared parenting time, the applicant sought substantial indemnity for costs, fixed at $8,000.

The respondent proposed partial indemnity of $2,500, payable by deduction from any equalization payment.

The court, applying Rule 24, awarded partial indemnity costs of $2,500 to the applicant, payable forthwith by the respondent.

The applicant father and respondent mother both brought motions for temporary orders regarding parenting time, custody, and child support.

The father sought a specific parenting schedule and permission to take the children on vacation, while the mother sought sole custody and an adjustment to child support.

The court found that the mother was unreasonably restricting the father's access and acting on extraneous considerations.

The court declined to make a custody order, implemented the father's proposed parenting schedule, permitted the vacation travel, and ordered the father to pay a small monthly amount for section 7 expenses while dismissing the mother's request to vary base child support.

The parties separated in 2010 after a high-conflict marriage.

The applicant mother was charged with assaulting one of the children in 2012, leading to a 21-month period of no contact and the respondent father assuming primary care.

Following reconciliation counselling, the mother sought equal time-sharing and parallel parenting, while the father sought sole custody.

The court found that both parents were capable but unable to communicate effectively due to intense conflict.

The court ordered a divided parallel parenting regime, allocating specific decision-making areas to each parent, and an equal time-sharing arrangement.

The court also resolved outstanding child and spousal support issues, ordering the father to pay a set-off amount of child support going forward and terminating spousal support after a transition period.

The parties were involved in a protracted, high-conflict family law trial regarding custody and access.

Pending the release of full reasons for judgment, the court issued an advance ruling on the issue of 2016 Christmas holiday time-sharing.

The applicant mother sought equal time-sharing over the holidays, while the respondent father sought to limit her time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court found that the mother had made significant strides in addressing past concerns and had re-established a meaningful bond with the children.

The court ordered that the 2016 Christmas school break be shared equally between the parties, structured to ensure the children spent no more than three consecutive overnights with the mother.

The applicant father brought a Hague Convention application seeking the return of the parties' child to Colorado.

The mother had travelled to Ontario with the child for a short visit but subsequently decided to remain.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Colorado and wrongfully retained in Ontario.

However, the application was dismissed because the father's prolonged silence and failure to contact the child for several months constituted subsequent acquiescence to the retention under Article 13 of the Convention.

The applicant mother brought a motion to find the respondent father in contempt of three temporary supervised access orders.

The mother alleged the father engaged in a campaign of parental alienation and deliberately thwarted the implementation of her access to their two children.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the temporary orders in question had been superseded by a subsequent order and were no longer live and operative.

Furthermore, the court found that the father had not engaged in alienating behaviour, but rather acted out of legitimate protectiveness for the children's emotional well-being.

The court also concluded that the mother failed to use contempt as a remedy of last resort and that the father had taken reasonable steps to facilitate access.

The respondent moved to vary a child support and access order and to strike the applicant's answer for failure to attend questioning.

The court granted the temporary variation of child support and ordered the applicant to re-attend questioning.

While declining to strike the answer due to access issues, the court ordered the applicant to pay the examiner's booking cost and $4,000 in costs for the aborted discovery and motions, with $3,000 allocated for child support purposes.

Following reasons for judgment in a family law variation proceeding, the court was asked to determine costs.

The respondent to the original application sought costs exceeding $34,000, relying on relative success and prior offers to settle.

The court reviewed the governing framework under the Family Law Rules, including Rules 18 and 24, and considered relative success, settlement offers, conduct of the parties, and ability to pay.

Although the respondent achieved greater success overall, the court found both parties had partial success and had acted reasonably.

Given the responding party’s limited financial means and significant indebtedness, the court declined to award costs.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to vary a 2003 spousal support order due to a reduction in his income after changing employment.

The responding party (former wife) opposed and sought retroactive post-secondary expenses for their adult child.

The court found the moving party's income reduction from an average of $420,303 to $270,153 constituted a material change in circumstances.

Spousal support was varied from $7,000 to $5,850 per month, retroactive to January 2010, resulting in $46,750 in arrears owed to the responding party.

The court also ordered the moving party to pay $43,598, representing his 65% proportionate share of the child's reasonable retroactive post-secondary expenses.