Randy Scott Brant

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.

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.