Following a motion to change concerning the interpretation of a separation agreement and the calculation of child support, the court determined the issue of costs.
The parties achieved mixed success, with the moving party prevailing on the interpretation of the agreement and retroactive child support period, while the responding party succeeded on the residence of the child for support purposes.
Applying the principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the moving party was more successful overall but that full indemnity costs were not warranted.
Costs of $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements were awarded to the moving party and characterized as support for enforcement purposes.
The court also approved a payment schedule proposed by the responding party for retroactive child support.
