Samantha Filipovic

This decision concerns a costs award following motions between former spouses regarding parenting and child support.

The respondent father sought full recovery costs after being successful in obtaining primary care of the parties’ three younger children.

The court found that while the father was successful, full indemnity costs were excessive and instead awarded partial indemnity costs, fixed at $22,135.32, enforceable as child support.

The decision reviews the principles governing costs under the Family Law Rules, the parties’ conduct, and the proportionality of the costs claimed.

The applicant mother sought an interim variation of a final parenting order and updated child support.

The respondent father sought summary judgment to dismiss the mother's motion or narrow the issues.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the children's maturing views, the mother's non-compliance with residency restrictions, and significant school absenteeism for the younger children while in the mother's care.

The court granted summary judgment, varying the final order to establish primary care for each child based on their best interests and school attendance, and adjusted child support accordingly.

This endorsement addresses a costs motion brought by the respondent following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to change a final order.

The respondent sought full recovery costs of nearly $20,000.

The court considered the principles under Family Law Rule 24, including the parties' behavior, proportionality, and the intertwining of issues with a contempt motion and a second motion to change.

The court disallowed costs for secretarial assistance and found that full indemnity costs were not warranted due to shared blame for the dysfunctional relationship.

The court fixed costs at $1,000.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by the applicant to the respondent, enforceable as a set-off against child support.

The Respondent (Mother) sought full recovery costs after an eight-day trial, arguing the Applicant (Father) engaged in vexatious and bad faith conduct, and that her offers to settle were more favourable than the trial outcome.

The Applicant conceded the Respondent was entitled to costs but disputed the quantum and denied bad faith.

The court found the Applicant's conduct unreasonable but not amounting to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, thus not triggering full recovery costs.

However, considering the Applicant's unreasonable behaviour, disregard for court orders, and delays caused, the court awarded the Respondent $70,000 in costs, a significant amount but less than sought, balancing proportionality and the importance of the issues.

The trial addressed decision-making authority and parenting time for two children of the relationship, and child support for one child from the Mother's previous relationship.

The court granted the Mother sole decision-making authority and primary care of the children, finding that the Father's actions, including involving children in adult conflict and demonstrating a lack of insight into his detrimental behaviour, rendered shared parenting unworkable and contrary to the children's best interests.

The Father was ordered to pay child support for both the children of the relationship and the Mother's non-biological child.

A restraining order against the Father was continued due to concerns for the Mother's psychological safety.

The court heard three motions in related civil and family law actions to determine the distribution of $100,000 held by the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice.

The funds were the remaining net sale proceeds of a property previously owned by the respondent.

The parties disputed the interpretation of the family law Minutes of Settlement regarding the calculation of the applicant's 50% share, specifically concerning add-backs for legal fees and whether the respondent could deduct his civil litigation legal fees.

The court found that only the legal fees attributable to the family law file should be added back and that the respondent was not entitled to deduct his civil litigation fees from the amount subject to division.

The applicant, Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, sought a protection order for a child, P.W., based on allegations of sexual abuse by the father, L.W., against his older daughter, M.W. The father and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss Dilico's application, arguing no genuine issue for trial and agency failures in disclosure and consultation.

Dilico also moved to strike portions of an affidavit.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions, finding that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed regarding the sexual abuse allegations.

The court also dismissed the First Nation's motion to strike, noting their default in filing an answer.

The matter was directed to proceed to a focused hearing to determine protection findings.

The Father (Respondent in the original application, but moving party in this motion) sought to have the Mother (Applicant in the original application, but responding party in this motion) found in contempt of a final order dated March 28, 2019, alleging multiple breaches related to children's presence with the Mother's former spouse, healthcare decisions, exchange of documents, extra-curricular activities, and involving children in adult issues.

The Mother denied intentional breaches, arguing ambiguity in the order.

The court found some breaches proven beyond a reasonable doubt but exercised its discretion to decline a finding of contempt, issuing a stern admonishment instead, emphasizing the best interests of the children and the need for de-escalation of parental conflict.

This motion addressed multiple issues in a high-conflict separation, including the determination of children of the marriage, temporary custody and parenting schedule, temporary child support and section 7 expenses, sale of the matrimonial home, and continuation of a restraining order.

The court found the father stood in the position of parent for the non-biological children, granted the mother temporary decision-making authority, and ordered a week-on/week-off parenting schedule.

Child support was set based on equivalent incomes, and the matrimonial home was ordered for sale.

The existing restraining order against the father was continued, with communication restricted to My Family Wizard for parenting matters.

The father and mother brought motions regarding temporary parenting arrangements for their two children.

Both parents consented to joint custody and agreed on each other's parenting ability.

The father sought an order for a s. 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act and counselling for one child.

The mother opposed the assessment and increased access, arguing the current 10-4 schedule was the status quo.

The court found the 10-4 schedule was unilaterally imposed and not the true status quo.

The court ordered temporary joint custody with equal parenting time on a "week on/week off" schedule and a s. 30 assessment, but declined to order counselling given ongoing play therapy.

This decision addresses cross-motions concerning interim parenting arrangements for two children following the parents' separation.

The Mother sought to severely restrict the Father's parenting time, citing concerns about his mental health and past incidents.

The Father, while acknowledging mental health challenges, asserted they did not impair his parenting ability and sought shared parenting.

The court, prioritizing the children's best interests, found that the Father's mental health concerns warranted a cautious approach but did not justify the previously imposed limited access.

The court expanded the Father's parenting time to include regular overnights and ordered communication via Our Family Wizard, emphasizing the need to minimize parental conflict and stabilize the children's routine.

Financial issues were adjourned.

The mother brought a motion seeking leave to relocate the children from Thunder Bay, Ontario, to Whitehorse, Yukon Territory.

The father opposed the move and sought to set aside minutes of settlement, vacate a restraining order, and obtain specified access.

The court adjourned the mobility issue, deeming it premature without a report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The existing restraining order against the father was vacated due to a lack of objective evidence of ongoing risk.

The divorce was severed from corollary issues, while other ancillary matters were adjourned.

The defendant municipality sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction prohibiting public use of municipal land pending trial in a nuisance action brought by neighbouring landowners.

The court considered the test for leave under rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires either conflicting authority or good reason to doubt the correctness of the order combined with broader importance.

Although no conflicting jurisprudence was shown, the court held that the scope of the injunction—effectively barring all municipal use of public land—raised serious questions regarding judicial oversight of municipal policy decisions and therefore met the “doubt the correctness” test.

Leave to appeal the injunction and the associated costs order was granted.

However, the court declined to stay the injunction pending appeal, finding no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the order.

The applicant sought spousal support following a 12.5-year cohabitation and marriage.

The applicant suffers from mental illness, is unable to work, and receives CPP disability benefits.

The respondent earns approximately $71,500 plus bonuses and supports an adult child from a previous relationship who is attending post-secondary education.

The court found the applicant entitled to non-compensatory support based on need.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $650 per month in spousal support, commencing prospectively from July 1, 2013, for an indefinite duration, subject to a review de novo after January 1, 2019.

On a family law motion following separation after a long-term marriage, the applicant sought temporary spousal support, beneficiary designations, sale of the matrimonial home, occupation rent, and costs related to a motion to remove the respondent’s solicitor.

The court addressed the solicitor removal issue first and ordered the respondent to pay modest costs because the applicant was forced to bring the motion when the respondent declined to change counsel after a conflict arose.

On the support claim, the court declined to impute the higher income sought by the applicant and ordered modest interim spousal support of $200 per month.

The court ordered that the matrimonial home be listed for sale after April 1 with the applicant’s solicitor having carriage of the sale and the proceeds held in trust pending further order.

The claim for occupation rent was found to be premature and was referred to the trial judge.

The applicant brought a motion for a refraining order to prevent the Family Responsibility Office from suspending his driver's licence due to alleged child support arrears, and for a stay of enforcement.

The applicant provided evidence of a 2010 agreement between counsel that all support obligations were resolved.

The court granted the refraining order conditionally, finding the applicant established a prima facie case and would suffer hardship if his licence were suspended.

However, the court adjourned the motion to stay enforcement and suspend the support deduction order, requiring the applicant to serve the support recipient so she could be heard.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an extension of an ex parte restraining order against her spouse under family law proceedings.

The order had temporarily prevented the respondent from attending the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed the extension and alleged the motion was intended to remove him from the home rather than address safety concerns.

The court found the alleged threats constituted verbal conflict within a volatile marital relationship but were unlikely to result in violence given the parties’ history and absence of prior violence.

The court concluded there was insufficient justification to continue the restraining order.

Following motions in a family law dispute involving custody, access, and support, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant was primarily successful on the core issues of custody and access and on the determination that spousal support should be based on part-time employment income.

The respondent achieved some success on related matters, including expanded access, temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and denial of a restraining order.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and principles of reasonableness governing costs awards, the court determined that the applicant was the party primarily successful but that her success was tempered by the respondent’s partial success and excessive motion materials.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in a reduced amount.

The parties brought cross-motions for interim custody, child support, spousal support, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the mother interim sole custody, finding her proposed schedule minimized third-party care for the young children.

The father was ordered to pay interim child support of $1,273 per month based on his income.

Spousal support was denied at this time due to the father's assumption of significant family debt to purchase the mother's interest in the matrimonial home.

The father was granted 60 days of exclusive possession to complete the buyout.

Following the breakdown of a 12-year marriage, the applicant sought spousal support, enforcement of equalization and costs, and related relief.

Evidence showed the applicant worked part-time during the relationship while performing primary domestic responsibilities and contributing all earnings to the household, while the respondent had historically earned high income in mining-related employment but failed to comply with prior support and disclosure orders.

The court found the respondent intentionally under‑employed and imputed income based on his historical earnings.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court fixed ongoing spousal support and confirmed significant arrears.

The court also enforced outstanding cost awards through the Family Responsibility Office.