R. Cross

This endorsement addresses the costs of two motions concerning section 7 expenses, where the respondent father was the moving party.

The respondent's claim and offer to settle significantly exceeded the ordered outcome.

While the applicant mother's offer was more reasonable, it was made late, and she had initially resisted contribution and failed to file a financial statement.

Considering these offsetting factors, the court awarded the applicant mother $900 in costs for the final preparation and argument of the second motion.

This motion addressed the reasonableness of the Applicant mother's refusals to contribute to specific s. 7 expenses for the parties' two children.

The Respondent father sought payment for past post-secondary and competitive hockey expenses, and a prospective order for s. 7 contributions.

The court strictly adhered to the scope of a prior order, limiting the review to expenses incurred up to March 10, 2016, and rejecting the father's attempt to expand the motion into a de facto motion to change.

The court ordered the mother to pay 40% of Ashley's post-secondary income shortfall ($760) and a reduced amount for Michael's hockey expenses ($2,022), after disallowing mileage and certain other items.

The mother's refusal to contribute to these allowed amounts was deemed unreasonable.

The father's request for a go-forward order was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order that reduced his spousal support obligations to $400 per month, arguing it should have been reduced to zero due to his unemployment and suspended driver's license.

The Divisional Court found the motion judge erred in ordering any support given the economic disparity and the appellant's unemployment.

The court reduced the ongoing support to zero as of November 2003, but declined to order retroactive repayment.

No costs were awarded.