Peter Robertson

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and supervised parenting time for the parties' five-year-old child, as well as child support.

The respondent father, who struggled with substance misuse and mental health issues, did not attend the trial.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, and ordered that the father's parenting time be supervised.

The court declined to impute income to the father for prospective child support due to his addiction and unstable work history, but ordered him to pay $3,114 in retroactive child support arrears.

The trustee applied for an order approving the debtor's Division 1 proposal.

The debtor sought an adjournment to object to the trustee's remuneration and to expunge a creditor's proof of claim.

The court denied the adjournment, finding that the debtor had ample opportunity to challenge the claim earlier and that the bankruptcy proceedings had already been excessively delayed.

The court approved the proposal, finding its terms reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of creditors.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for interim child support, occupation rent, and the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The court found the applicant was entitled to needs-based interim spousal support due to the significant income disparity and depletion of his savings.

The applicant was ordered to pay interim child support and a proportionate share of section 7 expenses based on his farming income.

The respondent's motions for occupation rent and the sale of the matrimonial home were dismissed, as there was insufficient evidence for occupation rent and it was unreasonable to force the sale of the home before equalization was determined.

Following a family law trial addressing custody, residence, access, and income determination, the court considered liability and quantum of costs.

The father had been largely successful at trial on the primary parenting issues and his settlement offers exceeded the final outcome.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under the Family Law Rules, including proportionality, settlement offers, conduct of the parties, and the financial means of the parties.

Although the mother argued that a prior “costs in the cause” endorsement prevented recovery of earlier motion costs and raised her limited financial means, the court rejected those arguments.

Exercising discretion, the court awarded the father global costs of $26,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, HST, and the earlier motion.