This costs endorsement addresses two motions brought by the Respondent, both dismissed with costs awarded to the Applicant.

The first motion challenged the court's jurisdiction over property claims, and the second sought leave to appeal an arbitrator’s email communication.

The court reviews the guiding legal principles for costs in family law, including reasonableness, proportionality, and bad faith.

The Applicant was awarded $48,500 for the jurisdiction motion and $16,500 for the leave motion, both payable within 30 days.

This decision addresses the costs award following an uncontested family law trial.

The applicant sought spousal support and other benefits as per a separation agreement, which the respondent had failed to honour.

The court found the respondent was aware of proceedings but uncooperative.

Applying the principles of costs under the Family Law Rules, including indemnification, encouraging settlements, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour, the court awarded the applicant $3,000.00 in inclusive costs, finding the request reasonable given the respondent's conduct and the need for multiple motions.

The Applicant, Ms. Baxter, sought an order for costs against the Respondent, Mr. Pykari, related to Mr. Pykari’s dismissed motion to vary child and spousal support on a temporary basis.

The court awarded Ms. Baxter costs in the amount of $8,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The decision applied family cost rules, emphasizing the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs, and considered factors such as the parties' behaviour, the complexity of issues, and proportionality.

The court found that Mr. Pykari's original motion was best left for trial due to insufficient evidence and dated income information, and noted that both parties shared responsibility for delays and lack of disclosure, which influenced the final costs award.

The applicant father sought full indemnity costs from the respondent mother following a successful motion where the mother was found to have acted in bad faith by unilaterally changing the children's school and residence in breach of a separation agreement.

The court reviewed the legal framework for costs, particularly Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules regarding bad faith.

The court found the mother's actions, including concealing information, deceiving the father and the school principal, and breaching the agreement, constituted bad faith.

The court awarded the father full recovery costs of $21,319.45, emphasizing that such an order was necessary to condemn and discourage the mother's self-help behaviour.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the Applicant (Father) successfully compelled the Respondent (Mother) to ensure the child's consistent attendance at school and activities.

The Father sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing he was the successful party and that his offer to settle met Rule 18 requirements.

The Mother argued for no costs or costs in the cause, citing divided success and issues with the Father's offer and bill of costs.

The court found the Father was the successful party on the primary issue but denied substantial indemnity costs, concluding the offer to settle did not sufficiently meet Rule 18 criteria and noting issues with the proportionality and breakdown of the Father's claimed costs.

The Mother was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs to the Father.

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.

This costs decision followed a five-day trial concerning unjust enrichment, joint family venture, and unpaid monies.

The applicant, Danielle Belair, sought over $100,000, while the respondent, Marcel Bourgon, pursued over $76,000.

The trial judge awarded Ms. Belair a nominal amount of $818.64 and dismissed all other claims.

Considering the parties' conduct and Mr. Bourgon's reasonable settlement offers, which were significantly better than the trial outcome for Ms. Belair, the court fixed costs at $75,673.85, payable by Ms. Belair to Mr. Bourgon.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following motions concerning child relocation, custody, and access.

The Mother sought full recovery costs, arguing she was the successful party and the Father's conduct was unreasonable.

The court found the Mother was the successful party on the primary issue of relocation, but noted divided success on other issues, particularly access.

Considering the importance of the issues, the reasonableness of both parties' behaviour, and the offers to settle, the court fixed costs at $2,000, a substantial reduction from the Mother's claim.

The Mother's request to enforce the costs award as child support was denied, as the costs were not related to support or maintenance under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

This costs decision followed bifurcated motions concerning child access and disclosure of Children's Aid Society records.

The court addressed the admissibility of "without prejudice" settlement offers for costs purposes, finding an exception to privilege when issues are adjudicated.

Considering divided success and party conduct, the Applicant was awarded partial costs.

The court considered costs following a 16-day trial concerning custody of and access to a child.

Both parties sought full recovery of costs, alleging unreasonable behaviour by the other.

The court found divided success, noting the applicant was successful in obtaining generous unsupervised access, while the respondent had greater success on ancillary issues.

Neither party's offer to settle was found to be more favourable than the final order.

Despite some unreasonable behaviour from both sides and the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure, the court was not persuaded that the applicant's actions constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Considering all factors, including the divided success and the proportionality of costs, the court determined that no costs should be awarded to either party.