Randy Scott Brant

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 20-year marriage.

The parties enjoyed a high standard of living during the marriage, with the respondent earning a significantly higher income than the applicant.

The court found that the applicant was entitled to interim support to maintain a standard of living commensurate with that enjoyed prior to separation.

The respondent was ordered to pay $12,500 per month in interim spousal support, retroactive to January 1, 2019.

The respondent was substantially successful on motions to bifurcate the trial and compel financial disclosure from the applicant, who was seeking to set aside their separation agreement.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The respondent sought $12,290.00 on a substantial indemnity scale, while the applicant argued for $3,000.00.

The court found that the applicant's conduct in challenging the agreement while concealing his current financial circumstances warranted costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $8,407.20, inclusive of HST, after adjusting the hours claimed for preparation to ensure proportionality and reasonableness.

The applicant brought two motions in a family law proceeding concerning interim child and spousal support and related relief.

The primary issue was whether income should be imputed to either party for support purposes.

Applying the three‑step test from Drygala v. Pauli, the court held that although the respondent had voluntarily taken a lower‑paying job, the change was reasonable given the needs of the parties’ child in a shared custody arrangement.

The court also found the applicant was not intentionally underemployed due to health challenges and lack of evidence that better employment was reasonably available.

The court therefore declined to impute income to either party and ordered support based on the respondent’s $70,000 income and the applicant’s $7,500 income, effective January 1, 2013.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding sole custody of the parties' two children to the respondent with minimal access, as well as spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sole custody order due to the high conflict and lack of communication between the parents.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred by ordering minimal access despite recognizing the appellant's ability to assist with the child's special needs.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the Court increased the appellant's access to 35 percent.

The appeal regarding spousal support was dismissed.

A costs decision following multiple urgent family law motions concerning custody, residence of the children between provinces, access, and the appointment of representation for the children.

The court found that success on the motions was divided but that the respondent on the underlying motions achieved comparatively greater success, including an order appointing counsel for the children rather than a s. 30 assessment.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court determined that costs should be apportioned due to divided success and that the conduct of the responding party was not sufficiently unreasonable to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the more successful party.

Payment of the costs award was deferred pending the division of property or further order due to the other party’s financial circumstances.