Philip Patrick Healey

The applicant sought sole custody of the child Sofia, subject to reasonable access to the respondent, child support pursuant to the child support guidelines, section 7 expenses, and costs.

The respondent sought sole custody or, in the alternative, joint custody.

The court found that the applicant has been the primary caregiver since separation and granted her sole custody.

The respondent was granted generous access including overnight visits on Tuesday and Thursday, alternate weekend access, and extended holiday access.

The court imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes and ordered guideline support.

The court rejected the respondent's allegation that the applicant engaged in a deliberate plan to deprive him of access, finding instead that the parties were mismatched individuals who experienced an acrimonious separation but whose access arrangements had regularized over time.

Following a prior decision partially granting amendments to a statement of defence while dismissing other relief, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs or, alternatively, higher partial indemnity costs, arguing it was largely successful on the motion.

The court applied the factors in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality under Rule 1.04(1), and the Court of Appeal guidance that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than mirror actual expenses incurred.

Finding that the plaintiff achieved substantially greater success but that the motion was relatively straightforward, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Partial indemnity costs of $6,899 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded.

Following a three-day trial determining the shareholders of a corporation, the successful respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicants argued costs should be in the cause or limited due to a settlement offer and alleged excessive time claimed by counsel.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not justified because the applicants’ conduct was not reprehensible and the settlement offer did not comply with Rule 49.10 nor yield a result as favourable as the offer.

Applying the reasonableness factors under Rule 57(1), the court reduced the claimed hours and fixed partial indemnity costs at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.