Richard Noll

This is a costs endorsement following an uncontested family law trial conducted in two phases.

The applicant sought costs recovery for legal fees and disbursements incurred over approximately 24 months, from the preparation of the application through to the final determination of property issues and implementation of orders.

The court determined the scope of recoverable costs and applied principles from established case law regarding costs awards in uncontested trials, considering reasonableness, proportionality, and the conduct of the parties.

This decision addresses parenting time, joint decision-making, family violence, and property issues between Chevdet Alievski and Xhensila Alievski.

The court found that both parties are capable parents but that the mother was subjected to controlling and emotionally abusive behaviour during the marriage.

The court ordered joint decision-making, with the mother having the final say in the event of an impasse (except where a professional is involved), and implemented a 2-2-5-5 shared parenting schedule.

The court also addressed property division, including the treatment of a joint account and a $40,000 exclusion, and declined to award prejudgment interest.

This is a costs endorsement following a 3-day trial where most issues were settled.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing the Respondent acted unreasonably and that his January 10, 2024 offer to settle was as favourable as the outcome.

The Respondent sought no costs or a significant reduction, citing the Applicant's unreasonable behavior, lack of bill detail, and undue hardship.

The court found the Applicant's January 10 offer not as favourable, but his January 26 offer was successful.

The court determined the Applicant was largely successful on settled issues, particularly regarding parenting time and child support, and the pension division.

While the Respondent's income position was unreasonable, her overall behavior was not so unreasonable to warrant full indemnity costs from the outset.

Due to the Applicant's insufficiently detailed bill of costs, the court estimated a reasonable and proportionate amount.

The Respondent's ability to pay was considered but not a shield.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant $40,000 in costs.

The court heard a three-day trial primarily to resolve the division of the applicant's pension and costs, as other family law issues were settled by consent.

The central dispute was whether the applicant's pension should be divided by an immediate lump sum transfer to the respondent or paid in cash.

Applying s. 10.1(4) of the Family Law Act, the court ordered the immediate lump sum transfer, finding it would create a more equitable balance of liquid assets and retirement savings for both parties.

The court also determined that requiring a cash payment for an underfunded pension would be unfair to the applicant.

The "best interests of the children" was considered but deemed not a proper factor in this financial context, and in any event, would not have changed the decision.

The parties separated after a history of family violence and high conflict.

The mother sought sole decision-making and primary residency of their two children, while the father sought joint decision-making and shared residency.

The older child had refused contact with the father, while the younger child, who has ADHD, continued on a shared schedule.

The court ordered joint decision-making with a parallel parenting tie-breaking mechanism, allocating final authority on specific domains to each parent.

The younger child was ordered to continue on a shared 5-2-2-5 schedule, while the older child was ordered to reside primarily with the mother but transition to alternate weekends with the father following reunification therapy.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, an advance on equalization, and reinstatement of health benefits following a short marriage.

The applicant was unable to work due to a severe injury, while the respondent claimed he had been laid off from his parents' business shortly after the motion was commenced.

The court imputed income to the respondent, finding him intentionally unemployed, and awarded the applicant interim spousal support of $3,445 per month based on the basic needs/hardship exception to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also ordered the reinstatement of health benefits but dismissed the request for an advance on equalization due to genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court determined costs following a trial in a mobility case.

The respondent, Jennifer Davis, was the successful party and sought partial indemnity costs.

The applicant, Darcy Bourke, argued for no costs or minimal costs due to good faith litigation and significant future travel expenses for access.

The court affirmed the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs, finding no general principle against awarding costs in mobility cases.

While acknowledging the applicant's travel costs, the court fixed costs at $22,760 for the respondent, representing a deduction of one year's child support from the claimed amount.

The applicant sought joint and shared custody of the parties' two children.

The respondent sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the children to Washington State to live with her new husband.

The court granted joint custody but gave final decision-making authority to the respondent.

The court permitted the respondent to relocate with the children to Washington State, finding she was the primary caregiver and the move was in the children's best interests.

The applicant was granted generous access and relieved of child support obligations to offset travel costs.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, interim child support, and the sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent sought interim exclusive possession of the home.

The court determined interim support based on a respondent income of $225,000 and applicant income of $25,000, applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines with child support formula.

The court ordered interim child support and spousal support retroactive to the commencement of the application.

The respondent’s request for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home was dismissed, and the court ordered the home sold under the Partition Act, subject to a 30‑day opportunity for the respondent to buy out the applicant’s interest.

Following a family law trial concerning equalization, retroactive support, and spousal support, both parties sought costs based on competing offers to settle.

The court compared the offers with the trial outcome and determined that the applicant’s offer was more favourable to the respondent than the final result in respect of equalization and pension division, although the trial result on spousal support fell between the parties’ offers.

The applicant was unsuccessful on certain issues, including occupation rent and aspects of spousal support.

Considering the mixed results and the respondent’s financial circumstances, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant.

Following the breakdown of a long-term marriage, the court determined issues of equalization of net family property, retroactive child support, spousal support, occupation rent, and disposition of the matrimonial home.

The court fixed the separation date as January 1, 2006 based on admissions in the pleadings.

Claims relating to alleged debts to a parent and certain credit card liabilities were rejected for lack of proof.

Retroactive child support was ordered in a reduced amount applying the principles from D.B.S. v. S.R.G., and spousal support was ordered prospectively and retroactively with income imputed to the recipient.

A claim for occupation rent was dismissed as the parties had implicitly accepted the status quo following separation.