Rodney Brian Cross

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 respondent brought a motion to set aside a final order granted at an uncontested trial for divorce and corollary relief.

The respondent had retained counsel after being served, but his counsel failed to file an Answer or attend the trial due to personal circumstances, including the illness and death of her mother.

The court applied Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules and the factors for setting aside a default order, finding that the respondent had a plausible explanation, moved promptly upon learning of the order, had an arguable case on the merits, and would suffer significant prejudice if the order stood.

The motion was granted and the order was set aside.

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.

Following a motion regarding child support and post-secondary educational costs, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought partial indemnity costs of $8,000 to $10,000, while the father sought costs of $27,019.12.

The court found that there was divided success, as the mother was successful in obtaining a contribution for post-secondary expenses and life insurance proof, while the father was successful in having support based on his actual income.

Neither party beat their respective offers to settle.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The court rendered a costs endorsement following a motion regarding child support.

Both the father and mother sought costs, claiming divided success.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and considered factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance and complexity of issues, reasonableness of behaviour, lawyers' rates, time spent, and expenses.

The court found divided success and that neither party's offer was as favourable as or more favourable than the final award.

Consequently, no costs were ordered.

The respondent mother sought to change a child support agreement, including a sharing of post-secondary expenses and proof of a life insurance policy.

The applicant father objected, citing unemployment and seeking a retroactive adjustment.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to income changes and a child attending university.

The court imputed income to the father, finding his decision to leave his lucrative employment in Vietnam without securing new full-time work in England unreasonable, thereby prioritizing his own interests over his children's support needs.

Child support was adjusted retroactively based on the imputed income, and the father was ordered to contribute to post-secondary expenses and provide proof of an irrevocable life insurance designation.

The applicant mother and respondent father both sought costs following a family law trial.

The mother sought $38,000 and the father sought $5,000.

The court found that success at trial was divided: the mother succeeded on sole custody, child support, and Section 7 expenses, while the father succeeded on property issues and spousal support.

Success on access was also divided.

Although the mother made offers to settle, they did not align with the trial outcome, and the father failed to make any offers.

Consequently, the court made no order as to costs, requiring each party to bear their own.

The applicant father, residing in California, brought an application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act to terminate his spousal and child support obligations due to his recent unemployment.

The court suspended spousal support and reduced child support for the younger child, but declined to erase the substantial arrears accumulated while the applicant was employed.

The court also dismissed the applicant's requests for child support for the adult child living with him and for an access order regarding the younger child due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs.

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.

Following an earlier costs decision directing the respondent to file a proper Bill of Costs, the court considered the respondent’s revised submission.

The submission included extensive additional materials beyond the requested Bill of Costs, which the court declined to consider.

The court found the claimed full indemnity costs of over $52,000 excessive relative to the proportionality of the dispute, which concerned whether $125,000 should be shared between the parties.

After accepting disbursements but rejecting certain fee claims and finding the hours excessive, the court determined reasonable full indemnity costs to be $25,000 and fixed partial indemnity costs accordingly.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $16,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a family law trial concerning property division and equalization, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The principal dispute at trial concerned whether the respondent’s cottage constituted a matrimonial home for purposes of calculating Net Family Property.

The court found that the applicant had advanced an unfair claim regarding the cottage which significantly prolonged the litigation.

Although neither party beat their formal settlement offers, the court determined that the respondent was the successful party and entitled to costs.

However, the court declined to assess the amount due to inadequate cost submissions and directed the respondent to file a proper bill of costs.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage.

The applicant sought to have the respondent's cottage, which he owned prior to marriage, declared a second matrimonial home under s. 18(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that while the parties ordinarily used the cottage during the summer, the applicant never treated it as a family residence, making no financial or maintenance contributions.

Thus, the cottage was not a matrimonial home, allowing the respondent to deduct its pre-marriage value from his net family property.

The court also ordered the inclusion of the respondent's survivor pension benefit in his NFP and dismissed his claim for occupation rent.

The Bank of Montreal and the bankruptcy trustee for a respondent moved to rescind part of a prior consent order obtained in family proceedings concerning the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a matrimonial home.

The impugned paragraph authorized payment of funds held in court to the applicant and characterized the payment as child support, despite the respondent being an undischarged bankrupt and the funds having vested in the bankruptcy trustee.

The earlier consent order had been obtained without notice to the trustee and contrary to a prior court order requiring that any claim to the bankrupt’s share be pursued through a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding.

The court held the consent provision invalid and rescinded it, ordered the remaining funds subject to a stop order paid to the Bank of Montreal pursuant to its execution, and held the applicant jointly and severally liable with the bankrupt respondent to the trustee for the portion previously received.

Costs were awarded to the bank and trustee.

Following the breakdown of a long marriage, the applicant sought equalization of property, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, child support, damages for spousal assault, and a restraining order.

The respondent sought equalization, sale of property, spousal support, and contested the valuation date and other financial issues.

The court determined the valuation date to be September 1, 2007 under s. 4 of the Family Law Act and found the parties continued financial cooperation after separation did not amount to reconciliation.

The court ordered the sale of jointly owned real property and the family business with proceeds divided subject to adjustments including unpaid corporate dividends, a septic repair contribution, equalization payment, and retroactive child-related expenses.

The respondent’s claim for spousal support was dismissed and damages for historical spousal assault were awarded in the modest amount of $1,000.

Requests for exclusive possession and a restraining order were denied.

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.