D. Roger Timms

The respondent brought a motion to expand access to the child and to stay a previous costs order.

The applicant opposed, arguing no urgency and that the respondent should not be heard due to unpaid costs.

The court dismissed the motion to stay costs, finding no urgency.

Regarding access, the court found urgency due to the child's developmental stage and pandemic-related delays, and ordered a phased expansion of Sunday access hours, but denied immediate overnight access.

The court also ordered the respondent to comply with public health regulations related to his employment as a nurse.

No costs were awarded for this motion.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside a divorce judgment from February 2013, alleging non-service of the divorce application and seeking an equalization of net family properties.

The court found that the affidavit of service was false, but there was no evidence the applicant knew of the fraud.

The court determined that the parties had separated much earlier than the respondent claimed, validating the basis for the divorce.

The respondent failed to act promptly upon learning of the divorce and provided no adequate explanation for the significant delay (at least 18 months, more likely three years) in bringing the motion.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, noting that any claim for equalization under the Family Law Act would require a separate motion for an extension of time.

The applicant sought to vary his child support obligations, arguing for a reduction based on his corporate income and losses.

The respondent sought to increase the applicant's income by adding back various corporate deductions and imputing hypothetical interest and tip income.

The court largely rejected the respondent's proposed additions for automotive expenses, amortization, non-arm's length salary, and hypothetical interest, finding the forensic accountant's testimony problematic.

However, the court agreed to add back child support improperly deducted as a company expense and grossed-up tip income.

The court calculated the applicant's income for child support purposes for several periods, resulting in adjusted monthly payments, and maintained the 50/50 split for Section 7 expenses as per the original agreement.

This trial addressed custody, child support (including Section 7 expenses), spousal support, and equalization of net family properties (NFP) between self-represented parents.

The court declined to grant sole custody to the applicant for the minor child, instead making no custody order but granting the applicant specific rights for travel and education direction, and the respondent access to school information.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support arrears and ongoing basic child support, and the applicant to pay spousal support to the respondent.

The court found the parties' claimed Section 7 educational expenses for their children to be unreasonable given their incomes and declined to order payment from capital.

Due to insufficient and unreliable evidence from both parties, the court dismissed all claims regarding NFP equalization, ordering the remaining funds from the matrimonial home sale to be equally divided after deducting child support arrears.

The respondent sought to change prior custody and access orders.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the respondent's motion and modify access.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the respondent's motion regarding custody and access, finding no genuine issue for trial given the child's consistent and strong preference not to see the respondent due to alleged abuse and the OCL's report.

The court also granted the applicant's request for modified access, allowing the child discretion.

However, the applicant's request for summary judgment on child support, based on the respondent's alleged scrap metal income while on ODSP, was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Following a family law trial concerning custody, access, and mobility, the successful party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $170,000 including costs of earlier motions.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considered the effect of an unaccepted offer to settle under Rule 18(14), the parties’ conduct during litigation, and the presumption that costs follow success.

The court found the successful party’s conduct reasonable and the opposing party’s conduct contributed to unnecessary trial length and litigation complexity.

However, the bill of costs did not clearly segregate financial issues from parenting issues, warranting a modest reduction.

Considering the opposing party’s limited financial circumstances as a discretionary factor, the court fixed costs at $105,000 inclusive.

A costs endorsement in a family proceeding addressing the applicant’s bill of costs following earlier orders.

The applicant sought recovery of legal fees, disbursements, and HST calculated using Legal Aid tariff rates and including time billed by multiple office staff.

The court endorsed the reasoning that staff time such as secretaries or non‑articling students generally constitutes law office overhead and should not be separately recoverable in costs awards.

While accepting the Legal Aid tariff rates and allowing compensation for a law clerk and paralegal, the court declined to deduct earlier costs awarded on a different basis and adjusted the claimed amounts accordingly.

The court fixed the total costs payable to the applicant after deductions.

The applicant father and respondent mother contested custody of their three-year-old child.

The mother had previously taken the child to Germany without the father's consent, leading to a Hague Convention order returning the child to Canada.

The mother sought custody and permission to relocate to Germany, while the father sought sole custody in Canada.

The court found that the mother's lingering anger and history of interfering with the father's access posed a significant risk to the child's relationship with the father.

Applying the best interests test, the court awarded sole custody to the father and established an access schedule for the mother, contingent on whether she remained in Canada or returned to Germany.