Pauline Malcom

This costs endorsement followed a trial regarding child support arrangements.

The maternal grandmother (L.L.M.L.) was the successful party and sought $22,407 in costs from the father (A.S.), who proposed $3,000.

The court considered the Family Law Rules, principles of success, offers to settle, and the treatment of costs for prior steps in a case.

The father's unreasonable conduct, including inadequate financial disclosure and an unwarranted claim of a shared parenting arrangement, significantly increased the litigation's duration and expense.

The court fixed costs at $8,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by the father at $250 per month, with a provision for the full amount to become due upon late payments.

This trial concerned a claim for child support by the maternal grandmother (L.L.M.L.) against the father (A.S.) for the child (M.L.).

The primary issue was the father's income for child support calculation, specifically whether income should be imputed to him.

The court found the father not credible regarding his reported income and financial disclosure, drawing an adverse inference.

It imputed an annual income of $40,000 to the father from September 1, 2018, finding him intentionally under-employed.

The court also confirmed there was no shared custody arrangement, despite the father's false claim to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), and ordered child support arrears.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a motion hearing on custody, access, and child support.

The mother sought temporary custody and child support; the father sought joint custody and unsupervised access.

The parties agreed on child support and primary residence with the mother.

The court granted the mother temporary custody with supervised access to the father.

The mother sought costs of $4,746; the father sought no costs or minimal costs.

The court found the mother was the successful party on custody and parenting time issues and awarded costs of $2,000, payable at $125 per month starting March 1, 2020.

The court declined to enforce the costs order through the Family Responsibility Office as the costs were attributable to parenting issues, not support.

The respondent father brought a motion for expanded access to his two children, including overnight access.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought to maintain the existing day-access schedule.

The mother also brought a cross-motion to change the children's counsellor.

The court found that after over one year since separation, the children were ready for expanded overnight access.

The court granted the father's motion for increased access on alternate weekends and mid-week overnight access, and dismissed the mother's motion to change counsellors.

The decision emphasizes that children benefit from maximum contact with both parents consistent with their best interests, and that the party seeking to restrict access must justify such restrictions.