Rodney B. Cross

The parties executed Minutes of Settlement to resolve parenting and child support issues through mediation/arbitration.

The respondent subsequently refused to pay the arbitration retainer or attend mandatory domestic violence and power imbalance screening, arguing the arbitration agreement was invalid.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the respondent to proceed.

The court granted the motion, finding the respondent was bound by the Minutes of Settlement to take the necessary steps to implement the agreement, including attending the required screening.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the resumption of access with his 12-year-old son, which had been temporarily suspended by a prior order pending therapeutic services.

The child exhibited severe trauma and strongly opposed contact with the father.

The court dismissed the motion for interim supervised access, finding it could cause significant emotional distress and undermine the ongoing reunification therapy process, but ordered increased frequency of the child's counselling sessions.

The applicant sought costs of $9,288 on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs, alleging the applicant's behaviour was unreasonable.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules and that his behaviour was not unreasonable.

The court noted the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle was unreasonable.

The applicant was awarded costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of HST.

The applicant father brought a motion requesting the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) in an ongoing high-conflict custody and access dispute.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing it was premature as no material change in circumstances had been proven and that OCL involvement would further entangle the child in litigation.

The court found sufficient evidence of a material change and concluded that an OCL investigation would assist the court in determining the child's best interests given the escalating conflict.

The motion for OCL involvement was granted.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change a final order for spousal support, alleging a material change in circumstances due to job loss and medical inability to work full-time.

The court found the moving party failed to provide sufficient evidence that his reduction in income was genuine or that his health had materially worsened since the trial.

The court dismissed the motion to reduce support, ordered the discharge of a Certificate of Pending Litigation on the responding party's property, and directed that the spousal support arrears be set off against an outstanding equalization payment owed by the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion to change a separation agreement following the termination of his employment, seeking termination of his spousal support obligation, child support from the respondent for a dependent adult child with disabilities, and an order requiring the respondent to pay him spousal support.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting variation of the agreement.

The adult child’s needs were being met through disability benefits and child support could not be justified merely to fund a future trust.

The applicant’s income was imputed at $50,000 based on his admission that he could obtain employment at that level, and the agreement’s income‑adjustment provisions continued to govern spousal support.

The claims for child support and spousal support from the respondent were denied.

Following family law motions in which success was divided between the parties, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court found that neither party had behaved particularly reasonably during the proceedings.

Applying the discretionary principles governing costs in family law matters, the court declined to award costs to either side.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

A father brought a motion alleging the mother was in breach of a prior access order after she unilaterally terminated his parenting time with the parties’ two children.

The mother argued that several incidents during access demonstrated the father’s anger issues and justified suspending access or imposing supervised access pending a psychiatric assessment.

The court reviewed recordings and evidence concerning four incidents of parental conflict and concluded that both parents contributed to escalating disputes but that the children were not placed in serious jeopardy.

The unilateral termination of access was not justified.

The existing access order was reinstated with additional conditions limiting parental interaction and requiring the parties to avoid involving the children in the conflict.

Following a family law motion addressing several issues including whether retirement constituted a material change in circumstances for child support, retroactive special expenses, income imputation, and continuation of support for a child attending school, the court considered the issue of costs.

The husband was successful on some issues, including the change of circumstances and retroactive special expenses, while the wife succeeded on income imputation and continuation of support for a child in school.

The court found that success was substantially divided between the parties.

In light of the mixed results and the timing of settlement offers, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a prior child support order following his retirement and the eldest child reaching the age of majority.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father’s reduced income but concluded that his retirement was voluntary and unsupported by sufficient medical evidence.

As a result, the court imputed income above the father’s pension income when recalculating support.

The court also addressed whether support should continue for the adult child during a transitional period before potential post-secondary education and declined to award historical special expenses due to insufficient evidence.

The support order was varied effective January 1, 2013 based on the imputed income.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $86,832 following a five-day custody trial, plus costs for a prior motion.

The court denied costs for the prior motion, noting that under Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules, costs must be decided at each step.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding divided success and that the respondent's pursuit of sole custody was not unreasonable.

The court fixed the applicant's costs on a lower partial indemnity scale at $27,650, subject to an $8,000 set-off from a property settlement.