Peter Dymoke Eberlie

The parties sought costs following a 16-day family law trial.

The applicant claimed $375,000 on a full indemnity basis, while the respondent claimed $587,738.68 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was the more successful party and her settlement offers were far more realistic than the respondent's.

The court awarded the applicant costs in the all-inclusive amount of $165,000.

The court issued supplementary reasons to clarify the precise start date and length of cohabitation for spousal support calculations.

The applicant contended cohabitation began in January 1992, while the respondent asserted May 1995.

The court determined that cohabitation commenced in October or November 1994, resulting in a cohabitation period of 21.5 years.

This clarification was deemed necessary because the length of cohabitation impacts the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) "without children" formula, which became relevant after child support obligations ended.

This family law trial addressed property division and spousal support for unmarried spouses after a 20+ year cohabitation.

The court found a "joint family venture" existed from late 1994, recognizing the applicant's significant non-financial contributions and career sacrifices.

The family home and joint investments were ordered to be equally divided, with the respondent paying the applicant an equalization payment.

The court imputed income to the applicant for spousal support purposes due to inconsistent job search efforts post-separation, but also acknowledged her past caregiving responsibilities.

Indefinite spousal support was awarded to the applicant at the midpoint of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, and child support termination dates were confirmed.

This is a costs decision following the applicant's successful motion for compliance with undertakings and financial disclosure.

The applicant sought $32,000 in costs, while the respondent argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court found the applicant largely successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

While acknowledging the respondent's substantial voluntary disclosure, the court determined that his position on certain disclosure was incorrect, leading to the motion.

The court applied the Family Law Rules, which allow for flexibility in costs, and considered the absence of offers to settle from either party.

Ultimately, the court fixed the applicant's costs at $22,425, representing approximately 70% of her fees plus allowed disbursements, and ordered the respondent to pay this amount within 30 days, enforceable as a support order.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to answer undertakings and refusals from oral questioning in a family law proceeding.

The requested disclosure primarily related to the respondent's severance package from a former employer, significant loans received from a friend, consulting invoices, bank and credit card statements, and documents regarding the purchase of a farm property.

The court granted almost all of the applicant's requests, finding the financial information relevant to the applicant's claims for spousal support and potential imputation of income.

The applicant brought a motion to increase interim spousal support, seeking to impute over $1.8 million in corporate income to the respondent following a corporate reorganization.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to compel the applicant to approve the valuation reports of a jointly retained expert.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding no material change in circumstances and preferring the joint expert's preliminary view that a promissory note from the reorganization was not available income.

The court also dismissed the respondent's motion to compel approval but provided directions for finalizing the expert reports.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought competing motions regarding interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, parenting, and support.

The parties had a high-conflict separation resulting in the applicant being charged with assault and removed from the home.

The court granted the applicant interim exclusive possession of the home, finding it was in the children's best interests to return to their home and daycare routine.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $266,952 based on prior earnings and non-taxable benefits, ordering interim child and spousal support.

The applicant was granted sole decision-making responsibility, and the respondent's parenting time was ordered to be supervised for three months due to concerns about his alcohol consumption.

The respondent husband brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary relief.

The applicant wife opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion requiring the respondent to pay the upfront costs of an updated joint expert income report.

The court dismissed the motion to sever, finding the respondent failed to prove the applicant would not be prejudiced regarding health benefits and noting the respondent's failure to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court granted the applicant's cross-motion, ordering the respondent to fund the expert report upfront, subject to equalization.

No costs were awarded due to the applicant's counsel failing to follow court directions regarding written submissions.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Henderson J. dated November 12, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs were requested, no costs were ordered.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion where the applicant sought an interim order for six trips with the child, but was only permitted one.

The court found the respondent to be more successful on the underlying motion.

The applicant sought $1,000 in costs, while the self-represented respondent claimed $4,500.

Although the respondent was deemed more successful and a reasonable costs award would be $1,000-$1,250, her entitlement was reduced to $250 due to her unreasonable conduct, specifically non-compliance with court orders regarding the length, form, and content of her filed materials.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $250 in costs.

This costs endorsement followed the dismissal of the respondent's motion for interim relief, which sought to revoke the applicant's parental rights and award sole custody.

The applicant, having successfully defended the motion, sought $10,000 in costs.

The court found the respondent's claims irresponsible and her ex parte proceeding a failure of full disclosure.

However, the applicant's own unreasonable conduct in attempting to cross the US border with the child without proper documentation led to a reduction in the costs awarded.

The court fixed costs at $3,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the respondent, and declined to characterize them as child support.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking permission for six international and domestic trips with the child during the school year.

The respondent mother opposed, emphasizing the high-conflict history, the importance of maintaining the established parallel parenting schedule to minimize parental conflict, and concerns about the child missing school.

The court dismissed five of the six proposed trips, finding them too disruptive and contrary to the child's best interests, particularly regarding school attendance and schedule stability.

However, one trip to Disney World was permitted, with specific arrangements for pick-up, return, and make-up parenting time, as it was deemed child-focused and minimally disruptive.

The court also addressed the respondent's non-compliance with procedural orders regarding affidavit formatting, declining to strike her affidavit but noting potential cost implications.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim parenting, child support, and spousal support.

The parties agreed on an equal parenting schedule based on a Voice of the Child report.

The primary issue was whether to impute income to the applicant, who had been a stay-at-home parent for many years but had not sought employment since separation.

Applying the principles from Drygala v. Pauli, the court found the applicant was intentionally unemployed and imputed an annual income of $55,000 based on a vocational assessment report.

The moving party (mother) brought an ex parte motion seeking sole custody and supervised access, alleging the responding party (father) attempted to abduct their child to the United States.

The court found no exigent circumstances justified the ex parte motion and that the moving party egregiously failed in her duty to make full and fair disclosure of material facts.

The responding party's attempts to cross the border without proper documentation showed bad judgment but did not constitute abduction.

The moving party's motion was dismissed on its merits, and the court imposed procedural constraints to manage the high-conflict litigation, including requiring leave for future motions.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2005 child support order, seeking to terminate support for his two adult children and erase arrears.

The respondent mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the motion to change, fix arrears, and order ongoing support.

The court found the father was intentionally underemployed and imputed income to him.

The court ordered support for one child to terminate after she completed her undergraduate degree, but found the other child, who is permanently disabled, remains a child of the marriage indefinitely.

The father was ordered to pay significant arrears and ongoing support.

The applicant father sought leave to bring an interlocutory motion for production of CAS records after a final order had been issued in a high-conflict custody case.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no underlying proceeding to ground it.

In a related garnishment hearing, the father had garnished the mother's bank account to collect costs.

The mother argued this effectively garnished child support and Canada Child Benefit funds.

The court set aside the garnishment to the extent of those funds, finding it inequitable to allow garnishment of monies meant for the child's benefit.

The moving party (the respondent in the family proceeding) brought a motion to sever the divorce from the corollary issues under Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The responding party opposed the motion, arguing that child support arrangements were not reasonable and that she would lose extended health benefits.

The court granted the severance, finding that reasonable arrangements for child support had been made and that the loss of health benefits did not amount to significant prejudice.

The applicant sought a determination of the respondent's income for child support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent, a sole shareholder of two corporations, claimed an income of $34,000 while declaring expenses of $86,000.

The court found the respondent's financial disclosure unreliable and that he was underreporting his income by charging personal expenses to his corporations.

Relying on sections 19, 22, and 23 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court imputed the respondent's annual income at $86,000.

The respondent was ordered to pay ongoing child support based on the imputed income and $5,641 in net arrears for child support, section 7 expenses, and erroneously claimed child tax benefits.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated shortly after the birth of their child.

The father sought joint custody and equal parenting time, while the mother sought sole custody.

The court found the parents were engaged in a high-conflict relationship and were unable to communicate or cooperate, making joint custody impossible.

However, the court also found that granting sole custody to the mother would likely lead to further conflict and marginalize the father.

The court ordered a parallel parenting arrangement with a week-about schedule, dividing decision-making responsibilities.

The court also imputed income of $150,000 to the father for child support purposes, finding he was intentionally under-employed, and declined to order the mother to pay child support despite the shared custody arrangement due to the significant income disparity.

The father's claims for occupation rent, vehicle lease reimbursement, and property equalization were dismissed.

The parties filed written submissions for costs following a motion regarding child access where success was divided.

The applicant sought $5,579 and the respondent sought $7,500.

The court noted that 21 affidavits were filed on the motion, yet neither party made an offer to settle.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court found that the failure to make an offer to settle constituted unreasonable behaviour.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs to either party, ordering each to bear their own costs.