Sarah M. Boulby

Following a trial and summary judgment motion regarding family law issues, the court determined costs.

The mother sought full indemnity costs of $331,780.36 based on offers to settle, while the self-represented father did not file submissions.

The court found the mother's offers did not trigger full recovery under Rule 18(14) but awarded her partial indemnity costs of $189,191.95 as the successful party, with 75% of the costs enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as an incident of support.

The parties separated after a 12-year marriage during which they lived in Switzerland.

The mother relocated to Ontario with their two children, one of whom has severe autism.

The father remained in Switzerland, earning a high income subject to lower tax rates.

At trial, the court determined the father's income for support purposes, rejecting his argument for a downward adjustment based on Switzerland's higher cost of living.

The court also refused to impute income to the mother, finding her unemployment was required to care for the children.

The court awarded the mother an equalization payment, retroactive section 7 expenses, a lump sum for retroactive spousal support, and ongoing spousal support of $10,000 per month, adjusting the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines calculations to account for the father's foreign tax advantages.

The applicant husband brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent wife, a law firm partner, brought a cross-motion seeking a regime where she paid no support but covered all housing and child expenses.

The court imputed the wife's income at $1,076,652 based on her firm's projections, despite Covid-19 uncertainties.

Applying section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines, the court modified the strict set-off amount to account for the wife's significantly higher housing costs.

The court also found the husband established a prima facie needs-based entitlement to temporary spousal support to maintain the family's accustomed lifestyle.

The wife was ordered to pay $6,714.50 monthly in child support and $5,567 monthly in spousal support.

Following a family law trial involving divorce, custody, access, travel permissions, and support issues, the court determined the applicant was overwhelmingly the successful party.

The applicant obtained divorce, sole custody, a non-removal order, travel authorization, and a restraining order, while the respondent’s claims were entirely dismissed.

Although the applicant did not succeed on spousal support, retroactive child support, or a request relating to a religious divorce, the court found the balance of success strongly favoured her.

The court fixed costs in the applicant’s favour.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and spousal support following the breakdown of the parties' marriage.

The respondent father, who resides in Dubai, sought sole or joint custody and opposed the support claims.

The court found the father to be controlling, abusive, and a flight risk, noting his refusal to grant a Muslim 'Talaq' divorce and his threats to take the child to Pakistan.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, ordered graduated and restricted access for the father conditional on surrendering his passports, and imputed a grossed-up income of $239,200 to the father for child support purposes.

The mother's claim for spousal support was dismissed due to the short marriage and her stable income.

On a motion to change a prior support order, the applicant sought orders requiring the respondent to contribute to the post‑secondary educational expenses of the parties’ adult children, including a master’s program in the United States.

The court held that the daughter pursuing a master’s degree remained a “child of the marriage” within the meaning of the Divorce Act, as she had not withdrawn from parental charge and her educational plan was rational and consistent with the family’s expectations regarding higher education.

The court also found no material change in circumstances justifying variation of the base child support previously agreed to by the parties.

The respondent was required to contribute proportionately to the children’s educational expenses under the existing order, including the U.S. graduate program, and base support was reduced only by the applicant’s consent.

The respondent’s request for retroactive variation of support based on alleged income changes was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside a prior costs order requiring payment of approximately $32,974.57 following earlier child support litigation.

The applicant alleged that the respondent had a special fee arrangement with his law firm which was not disclosed to the court and would have affected the costs determination.

The court applied the stringent test for setting aside an order based on newly discovered facts, as articulated in West v. West.

The court found the evidence did not establish the existence of a special fee arrangement but rather a payment mechanism involving internal fee credits used to satisfy legal accounts.

As the arrangement did not reduce or forgive the respondent’s fees and did not exist when the costs order was made, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the original order would have been different or that a miscarriage of justice would occur.