Roslyn Tsao

Following a six-day family law trial regarding parenting time and decision-making responsibility, the successful respondent sought costs of $129,037.52.

The applicant argued no costs should be awarded due to his inability to pay and the respondent's conduct.

The court found the respondent was entitled to enhanced costs as her offer to settle the main issue of parenting was as favourable as the trial outcome, though her support offer was not.

Considering the parties' modest financial means, the court reduced the costs claimed, including deducting fees for second counsel and conferences, and ordered the applicant to pay $60,000 in costs over 24 months.

The applicant father and respondent mother disputed parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and child support for their three young children.

The mother had a history of severe alcohol addiction, which led to a car accident with the children in 2017 and a subsequent relapse in 2019.

However, she had maintained sobriety for 18 months prior to trial.

The father sought sole decision-making and limited parenting time, while the mother sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time.

The court found that the mother had successfully managed her addiction and that it was in the children's best interests to have equal parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility.

A transition period was ordered to gradually increase the mother's parenting time.

Ongoing child support was terminated upon the commencement of equal parenting time due to the father's disproportionately higher housing costs.

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.

The husband's father brought an action to enforce an $800,000 mortgage registered against the matrimonial home, which was consolidated with the family law proceedings.

The court found the mortgage was a sham designed to protect the husband's equity and dismissed the father's claim against the wife.

In the family law action, the court determined the date of separation, valued the husband's corporate interests, and found the husband had manipulated his business affairs to defeat the wife's claims.

The court imputed an annual income of $300,000 to the husband based on his lifestyle and corporate benefits, and ordered him to pay an equalization payment of $489,354, retroactive support of $196,462, and ongoing spousal support of $7,000 per month (or a lump sum of $585,000).

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.

The husband's father brought an action to enforce an $800,000 mortgage registered against the matrimonial home, which was consolidated with the family law proceedings.

The court found the mortgage was a sham designed to protect the husband's equity and dismissed the father's claim against the wife.

In the family law action, the court determined the date of separation, valued the husband's corporate interests, and found the husband had manipulated his business affairs to defeat the wife's claims.

The court imputed an annual income of $300,000 to the husband based on his lifestyle and corporate benefits, and ordered him to pay an equalization payment of $489,354, retroactive support of $196,462, and ongoing spousal support of $7,000 per month (or a lump sum of $585,000).