Rodica David

Following a family law motion in which the respondent was found to have breached a prior court order requiring cooperation with a reintegration program, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party sought full recovery costs alleging unreasonable conduct and bad faith, while the responding party argued no costs should be awarded and sought costs relating to an adjournment.

The court found the moving party had been successful on the most important issue, namely the finding of breach of the court order.

While rejecting the claim for full recovery costs and excluding work related to unrelated issues, the court fixed a fair and reasonable amount payable by the unsuccessful party.

Following a motion concerning the sale of the matrimonial home and exclusive possession, the court addressed costs under the Family Law Rules.

The respondent had been entirely successful on the motion, obtaining exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and defeating the applicant’s request for immediate sale.

The court considered the presumption of costs under Rule 24(1), the effect of offers to settle under Rule 18(14), and the factors in Rule 24(11).

Although the respondent sought substantial costs, the court reduced the claimed amounts due to excessive time spent by counsel and uncertainty regarding disbursements.

The applicant was ordered to pay reduced costs to the respondent.

The applicant father brought a motion for the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, while the respondent mother sought interim exclusive possession pending trial.

The applicant argued he was in a desperate financial situation due to unemployment and Parkinson's disease, while the respondent argued a sale would prejudice her claims for security for support and a vesting order at trial, and would disrupt the children's stability.

The court dismissed the motion for sale and granted the respondent interim exclusive possession, finding that an immediate sale would prejudice the respondent's trial claims and that maintaining stability in the matrimonial home was in the children's best interests.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change a consent order regarding custody, access, child support, and travel of a two-year-old child.

She sought changes to the access schedule, removal of the child from Passport Canada's Lookout system, appointment of a parenting coordinator, increased child support, and a restraining order against the father.

The father opposed most requests but agreed to increased child support.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify modifications to the access provisions.

However, the court granted a restraining order based on the father's history of physical and psychological harassment, and appointed a parenting coordinator to facilitate communication between the parties.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking contribution from the respondent father toward children's special expenses under s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines, as well as direct payment pending enforcement by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court considered whether various expenses—including extracurricular activities, swimming, skating, gymnastics, school lunches, and day camp—qualified as reasonable special expenses.

The court held that extracurricular activities and certain program costs were reasonable and consistent with the family's pre‑separation spending patterns, but declined to order contributions for school lunches and previously agreed summer camp costs.

The father was ordered to pay 80% of specified expenses and to contribute a monthly amount toward ongoing extracurricular costs pending trial.

Costs of the motion were awarded partially to the mother.

Following the dismissal of a husband's motion seeking reconsideration of an earlier family law order, the wife sought costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected allegations that the motion had been brought in bad faith but found the husband's decision to pursue reconsideration rather than an appeal to be unreasonable.

As a result, the court determined that full recovery of the wife's reasonable costs was warranted, subject to a minor reduction reflecting items for which costs had previously been denied.

The husband was ordered to pay the reduced costs amount, enforceable as spousal support through the Family Responsibility Office.

The court determined costs arising from two family law motion attendances concerning custody, support, and related interim issues.

The moving party sought substantial recovery after expending significant legal fees, including retaining out-of-town counsel and multiple lawyers.

The court held that litigation costs must remain reasonable and proportionate, emphasizing that a losing litigant should not be burdened with inflated fees resulting from a party’s choice to retain expensive metropolitan counsel or excessive legal staffing.

While the moving party was more successful on the core interim issues and the responding party’s unilateral removal of the children precipitated the litigation, the court reduced the claimed costs substantially.

The court awarded fixed costs for each attendance and imposed a significant costs sanction reflecting the responding party’s self-help conduct.