Richard Bowles

The applicant sought costs following a three-day family law trial regarding unjust enrichment, income imputation, and support.

The applicant successfully defended the respondent's unjust enrichment claim and had made a more advantageous offer to settle that issue prior to trial.

Due to divided success on the support issues, no costs were awarded for those claims.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $22,000 in costs on a full recovery basis for the unjust enrichment and resulting trust issues.

The applicant father sought shared decision-making, a shared parenting schedule, child support, spousal support, and an equalization payment, challenging the validity of the parties' prenuptial agreement.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making, primary residence, child support based on imputed income, and validation of the prenuptial agreement.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making due to findings of family violence and maintained her primary residence of the child.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the father due to intentional underemployment, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support, dismissed his spousal support claim, and upheld the prenuptial agreement.

Following a twelve-day trial on a motion to change regarding parenting and relocation, the successful party sought costs of $91,098.07.

The opposing party argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success and financial hardship.

The court found the moving party was clearly successful and entitled to costs, but declined to award full indemnity costs as the judgment was not more favourable than the offer to settle on all issues.

The court awarded costs of $45,000, applying reductions for the unnecessary use of second counsel and the opposing party's dire financial circumstances.

The Father brought a motion to change previous parenting orders, seeking primary residence and final decision-making authority, and opposing the Mother's planned relocation to Australia with the children.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the Mother's unsubstantiated allegations of abuse against the Father, which led to CAS involvement, and a complete breakdown in communication.

The court determined it was not in the children's best interests to relocate to Australia, as they required stability and there were serious concerns the Mother would not support their relationship with the Father.

The Father was granted primary residence and final decision-making authority, while the Mother was granted graduated unsupervised parenting time.

The Husband brought a motion to amend his application to withdraw admissions regarding the interpretation of a marriage contract.

The Wife brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure of counselling records for a section 30 assessment, interim sole decision-making responsibility for healthcare, and disclosure of rental platform records.

The court refused to allow the Husband to withdraw his admissions but permitted him to plead an alternate interpretation.

The court ordered the Husband to sign consents for the release of counselling records if requested by the assessor, declined to grant the Wife interim sole decision-making responsibility but made specific orders for the children's healthcare, and ordered the Husband to sign consents for the release of rental platform records.

The respondent (moving party) brought a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside a final order made following an uncontested trial.

He alleged the applicant obtained the order through fraud and misrepresentation regarding the duration of their cohabitation and financial integration.

The court applied the Mountain View Farms factors and found no fraud or mistake.

Although the moving party established an arguable case regarding the start date of the joint family venture, the court dismissed the motion due to his unexplained delay, failure to participate in the original proceedings, and the potential prejudice to the responding party.

Following the dismissal of the respondent mother's motion to suspend the applicant father's parenting time based on unverified allegations of abuse, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father, who was wholly successful, sought costs for the motion and numerous related appearances.

The court applied the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, finding the father's behaviour reasonable and his time spent proportionate to the serious nature of the allegations.

The court also found the father's offer to settle was as favourable or more favourable than the motion's outcome, triggering Rule 18(14).

Costs were fixed at $35,000 payable by the mother, subject to a set-off against previous costs owed by the father.

The mother brought a motion to suspend or restrict the father's access to their two children, alleging physical and sexual abuse by the father.

The court reviewed the admissibility of various hearsay statements, children's disclosures, and business records, including Children's Aid Society files.

The court found that the mother failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances, as the abuse allegations were inconclusive following police and CAS investigations.

The court noted that supervised access visits had been positive and the children were safe in the father's care.

The mother's motion was dismissed, and the court ordered a gradual reintegration of the father's unsupervised access in accordance with a prior order.

The plaintiff commercial tenant brought an urgent motion after being locked out of its business premises by the defendant landlord.

The lease required the landlord to provide 30 days' notice before terminating the lease and re-entering the premises.

The court found that a spreadsheet allegedly provided to the tenant did not constitute proper notice under the lease.

The court held that the landlord unlawfully terminated the lease and granted the tenant's motion, ordering the return of items taken from the premises.

The applicant and respondent separated in 2006.

In 2009, the respondent, who suffers from bipolar disorder, drafted a separation agreement using an online template, which both parties signed without legal advice.

The applicant later sought to enforce the agreement, and the respondent sought to set it aside, arguing he lacked mental capacity due to his disorder and substance abuse, and citing a lack of financial disclosure and legal advice.

The court found no material non-disclosure, as the primary assets were known to both parties.

The court also found that the respondent was competent when he drafted the agreement, his vulnerability was not exploited by the applicant, and the agreement was not unconscionable.

The application to set aside the separation agreement was dismissed.