P. Pellman

Following family law proceedings, both parties claimed substantial success and sought costs under the Family Law Rules.

The court emphasized that costs remain discretionary and reviewed the parties’ conduct and credibility throughout the litigation.

The evidence revealed significant credibility concerns and conduct suggesting disregard for legal obligations, financial transparency, and prior court orders by both parties.

Given the pervasive lack of candour and improper conduct on both sides, the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of either party.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The moving party (respondent in the main application) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the responding party's claim for child support.

The parties had previously executed a separation agreement waiving child support, and the moving party argued he did not have a settled intention to treat the responding party's children as his own.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding whether the separation agreement's support provisions should be set aside and whether the moving party stood in loco parentis to the children.

The court held that credibility issues and the need for financial disclosure precluded summary judgment under the restricted test of Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.