Richard P. 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 parties separated after a 12-year common law relationship.

The mother sought an equitable interest in the father's home and pension based on unjust enrichment, as well as child and spousal support.

The father sought to impute income to the mother, arguing she was intentionally under-employed.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding no economic integration and that the father had solely funded the property and household expenses.

The court found the mother was intentionally under-employed and imputed an income of $50,000 to her.

The father was ordered to pay set-off child support and indefinite compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support.

This decision addresses costs following a motion to change parenting arrangements, including a proposed relocation of the child, M.B., from Ontario to British Columbia.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, offers to settle, and financial circumstances, ultimately awarding costs to the successful party, Mr. Bowick, but in an amount reduced for proportionality and ability to pay.

The decision addresses cross-motions to vary interim spousal support and related security obligations following the applicant's retirement.

The court finds a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's retirement and health, reduces spousal support to $1 per month pending trial, and declines to increase life insurance security.

The respondent's motion for retroactive support is dismissed as already decided.

The court sets out a process for any further motion to transfer the proceeding and for trial scheduling.

This was a motion to quash a notice of appeal filed by Edgar Bray.

The underlying litigation involved a commercial lease, where default judgment was granted against Mr. Bray and Triloq Corp. The moving parties argued that no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from a default judgment because it is not a final order under s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court confirmed the interlocutory nature of default judgments, noting that the proper mechanism to challenge such a judgment is a motion to set aside under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion to quash was granted, and the appellant was ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs.

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.

The Applicant sought $150,000 in interim costs but was unsuccessful.

The Respondent then sought costs for that unsuccessful motion.

The court exercised its discretion to defer the determination of costs for the motion to the trial judge.

The decision was based on the lack of a final determination of substantive issues, the narrow scope of the interim costs motion, and a concern that an immediate costs order might impair the Applicant's ability to finance and prepare for trial, particularly regarding expert evidence on the Respondent's financial affairs.

The respondent, a Lieutenant Commander in the Royal Canadian Navy, sought a temporary order to relocate with the three children of the marriage to North York, Ontario, due to a mandatory career development posting.

She also sought temporary sole decision-making authority and permission for the children to obtain passports and travel internationally without the applicant's approval.

The applicant opposed the relocation and the request for sole decision-making.

The court granted the temporary relocation, finding it to be in the children's best interests, particularly given the mother's primary caregiving role and the career implications of refusing the posting.

However, the court denied the request for sole decision-making authority and passport/travel permissions, deeming these issues for trial.

The court also provided guidance for the parties to agree on a revised parenting schedule.

The Applicant sought an interim disbursement costs order of $150,000 to fund financial experts and counsel for an upcoming trial, arguing the Respondent had significant income.

The Respondent claimed financial destitution due to the commercial real estate market downturn.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding she failed to provide sufficient evidence of her inability to fund the litigation from other sources (e.g., family loans) and lacked a detailed breakdown of future costs, as opposed to past expenses.

The court emphasized that interim cost awards are discretionary, limited to exceptional cases, and require clear demonstration of necessity and reasonableness for future litigation expenses.

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 Applicant brought a motion seeking permission to amend her application to include claims for constructive trust, intentional infliction of mental suffering and distress, and a restraining order against disseminating compromising videos/photographs.

She also sought an appraisal of an Australian property and further financial disclosure.

The Respondent opposed the motion, arguing delay, bad faith, and lack of merit for the new claims.

The court partially granted the motion, allowing the amendments, vacating the trial date, permitting the appraisal, and ordering specific financial disclosure, including intimate images and personal effects valuation.

The court found the proposed amendments tenable and necessary to avoid duplicative proceedings, despite the Applicant's delay.

The applicant father and respondent mother sought primary residence of their six-year-old child.

The mother, a general surgeon, had relocated to Kapuskasing for employment and sought to have the child reside primarily with her.

The father sought to have the child remain in Renfrew with him.

The court analyzed the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act, finding the mother to be more attuned to the child's needs and better equipped to support his relationships.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence be with the mother in Kapuskasing, with specified parenting time for the father.

Following a long-term marriage, the court determined spousal support, equalization, retroactive support, and the treatment of post-separation increases in the payor's income.

The court held the recipient spouse had no resulting trust interest in a residence owned by her father, so sale proceeds from that property were excluded from her net family property and an equalization payment of $189,470.96 was ordered by pension rollover with tax gross-up.

On support, the court found entitlement was primarily non-compensatory, but with a small compensatory component arising from indirect contributions to the payor's career development, and held that some sharing of post-separation income increases was justified.

Ongoing support was fixed at $3,800 per month until pension rollover, retroactive adjustment from 2017 was ordered using a formula based on all pension income plus 35% of other income, and some double recovery from pension income was permitted due to ongoing hardship and ability to pay.

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.

This costs endorsement followed motions regarding interim access.

The mother (respondent) sought costs, relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the outcome of the interim access motions to be more favourable to the mother than her offer, thereby entitling her to costs on a full recovery basis from the date of the offer.

The court fixed the quantum of costs at $12,580, considering factors such as the father's late service of motion materials, the extensive volume of evidence exchanged, and the parties' modest financial means, ensuring the costs award would not impede the father's ability to make child support payments.

This costs endorsement followed a successful motion by the plaintiffs in a landlord-tenant dispute.

The plaintiffs sought approximately $8,200.00 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued for a reduction based on the plaintiffs' pre-motion conduct and their request for post-decision costs.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles from *Boucher*, the court found the plaintiffs' requested costs reasonable, noting comparable billing rates and hours between the parties' counsel.

The court dismissed the defendants' arguments for reduction and ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs $8,200.00 in all-inclusive costs.

The court also confirmed that costs were payable by both corporate and individual defendants.