Rodney Cross

Following a decision staying the applicant's application pending payment of arrears, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent was successful in obtaining the stay and was presumptively entitled to costs.

However, because success was divided on the issues raised during the motion, the court apportioned costs and ordered the applicant to pay $4,500 to the respondent.

The respondent mother brought a motion to stay the applicant father's divorce and parenting application until he paid outstanding costs orders and transferred funds from his RRSP to satisfy child support arrears, as required by a 2014 court order.

The court found that while the father had complied with the monthly payment order, he had failed to obey the order requiring him to apply RRSP withdrawals to his arrears, having used the 2015 and 2016 withdrawals for his own purposes.

Applying Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court granted the motion and stayed the father's application pending his payment of $18,092.11, representing the RRSP funds he failed to transfer.

The mother sought partial indemnity costs following a successful motion for retroactive and ongoing child support and financial disclosure.

The father argued for divided success because the issue of spousal support was adjourned to trial.

The court found the mother was substantially successful and presumptively entitled to costs.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $4,124.10 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the father's unreasonable settlement offers and the reasonableness of the mother's legal fees.

In an addendum to a judgment on a motion to change, the court determined the exact quantum of a child support overpayment and addressed costs.

The court found the father overpaid $6,168.20 but reduced the repayment obligation to $1,500 due to the mother's financial hardship and the father's blameworthy conduct in failing to provide financial disclosure.

Despite the father's success on the child support issue, the court declined to award costs to either party, citing the father's bad faith non-disclosure.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support retroactive to September 2021, as well as financial disclosure.

The respondent father argued that the mother was intentionally underemployed, that one of the children was in a shared parenting arrangement, and that he had been paying support and other expenses.

The court found that the two youngest children resided primarily with the mother and ordered the father to pay retroactive and ongoing interim child support based on his 2020 income.

The issues of spousal support, imputation of income, and occupation rent were deferred to trial.

The court also ordered the father to provide the requested financial disclosure and granted the father's request for an appraisal of the matrimonial home and pension valuations.

The applicant mother brought a motion for a temporary order for sole decision-making authority, primary residence, and supervised exchanges, implementing the gradual parenting time increases recommended by a jointly retained assessor.

The respondent father opposed, seeking an immediate increase in parenting time and arguing against implementing an untested assessment before trial.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding that the jurisprudence has evolved to allow consideration of assessment reports on a motion where it provides probative evidence and is in the child's best interests.

The court ordered temporary sole decision-making to the mother with parameters, supervised exchanges, and gradual increases to the father's parenting time.

Following a family law trial where the applicant mother was granted sole custody and permitted to move to Montreal, the court determined the issue of costs.

The mother sought up to $170,284.90, while the father argued for a reduction due to divided success and the mother's conduct.

The court found the mother was successful on the major issues of custody and mobility, but noted she was unsuccessful on significant financial claims.

Applying the Family Law Rules and considering the divided success, the parties' behavior, and the nature of mobility cases, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $40,000.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the parties' two young children to Montreal to take over her family's business.

The father sought joint custody and opposed the move.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that the parties' poor communication and high conflict precluded joint custody, and permitted the move to Montreal as being in the children's best interests.

The father was granted a graduated access schedule that increased his parenting time to alternate weekends with overnights.

The court also ordered ongoing child support and a $10,000 lump sum for retroactive spousal support, but dismissed the mother's claims for retroactive section 7 expenses and a $60,000 business contribution due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant brought a motion to change parenting time, which resulted in the children residing primarily with him.

In these supplementary reasons, the court determined whether the respondent's parenting time met the 40% threshold under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines to justify a set-off of child support.

The court applied an hourly calculation and found the respondent's time fell short of the required 3,504 hours per year.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay full table child support.

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 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 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.