Sean Jones

This decision addresses a cost award following a Motion to Change brought by the Respondent, Pamela Branson, which was largely dismissed.

The Applicant, Larry Branson, sought $32,777.34 in costs.

The Respondent challenged the partial indemnity rate applied and the full recovery of the cost for a jointly commissioned expert report (Collins Barrow Report).

The court found the Applicant to be the successful party and awarded the full amount of costs sought, concluding that the fees and disbursements were reasonable and proportionate, and rejecting the Respondent's arguments regarding the indemnity rate and expert report cost.

The respondent, Pamela Branson, brought a motion to change seeking retroactive spousal support and the discharge of a mortgage.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to increased incomes of both parties and the children reaching adulthood.

However, retroactive spousal support was denied because the applicant's increased corporate income was attributable to an excluded gift, not compensatory contributions from the respondent, and the respondent failed to establish past need or justify a seven-year delay in pursuing the motion.

The mortgage securing an equalization payment was ordered discharged upon Pamela Branson paying the outstanding balance of $856.

The applicant's request to terminate spousal support was not adjudicated.

This case involved a trial of specified issues to determine the enforceability of a settlement agreement between separated spouses.

The applicant sought to enforce the agreement, while the respondent sought to set it aside under section 56(4)(b) of the Family Law Act, alleging she did not understand its nature or consequences and was subjected to undue influence by her counsel.

The court found the respondent to be an intelligent and engaged litigant who understood the finality and consequences of the agreement.

Despite some pressure during negotiations, her will was not overborne, and the agreement was not fundamentally unfair.

The court dismissed the respondent's request to set aside the settlement, finding it valid and enforceable.

Following a motion regarding child support and section 7 expenses, both parties sought costs.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle, finding that neither party presented an offer that was as favourable or more favourable than the final award.

Considering the divided success, the complexities of the section 7 expenses, and the absence of bad faith by either party, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The mother brought a motion to change a previous child support order, seeking increased Table support and contribution to section 7 expenses for three children, including private school and university tuition.

The father brought a cross-motion requesting to pay section 7 expenses directly to third parties.

The court determined the father's income to be $372,500 and ordered him to pay $4,970 per month in Table support.

The court also ordered the father to pay his 77% proportionate share of various section 7 expenses, including university tuition, private school fees, and orthodontic work, but denied several other claimed expenses such as gym memberships and snowboarding.

The father's request to pay third parties directly was dismissed.

Following a family law trial addressing a parental loan claim against matrimonial home proceeds, spousal support, and equalization of net family property, the court determined costs.

The parents of the wife sought $181,000 based on breach of contract or constructive trust but recovered only a smaller unjust enrichment award.

The husband was also successful on the equalization issue, while spousal support issues resulted in divided success.

Applying the Family Law Rules and considering settlement offers, the court concluded the husband was overall the more successful party on key issues.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded against both the parents and the wife.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce minutes of settlement reached shortly before trial in a family law dispute and sought judgment in accordance with the settlement, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and an order for its sale.

The respondent resiled from the agreement, alleging inadequate financial disclosure and asserting that pressure and circumstances surrounding the signing of the settlement undermined the formation of a binding contract.

The court held that the applicant had provided adequate financial disclosure and determined that this issue did not raise a genuine issue requiring trial.

However, conflicting evidence regarding the circumstances under which the settlement was negotiated and executed raised credibility concerns that could not be resolved on the motion.

The motion to enforce the settlement was therefore dismissed and directions were ordered for a trial of the issue of whether a binding settlement contract existed.

The moving party father brought a motion to change child support, section 7 expenses, private school tuition obligations, spousal support arrears enforcement, and access travel costs.

The court declined to impute income to the father, setting ongoing child support based on his actual reduced income.

The court ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of valid section 7 expenses (dental and tutoring) based on historical incomes, but dismissed claims for summer camps and other extracurriculars lacking consent or proof of necessity.

The father's requests to vary his 50% contribution to private school tuition, suspend enforcement of spousal support arrears due to bankruptcy, and share access travel costs were all dismissed.

The applicant brought a fourth motion seeking to have the respondent found in contempt for allegedly breaching a prior order restricting him from receiving income or benefits from his corporation while in default of spousal support obligations.

The respondent was significantly in arrears and had previously been found in contempt related to enforcement of support and security obligations.

The applicant argued that the respondent violated the order by receiving corporate-paid benefits including a vehicle, cell phone, and insurance coverage.

The court held that these items were legitimate business expenses necessary for the operation of the respondent’s real estate business and did not constitute prohibited benefits within the meaning of the earlier order.

The motion for contempt was dismissed and costs were reserved to the judge hearing the ongoing motion to change support.

The respondent to a prior support order brought a motion to vary a consent order governing child and spousal support, arrears, life insurance obligations, and costs.

The consent order had established a mechanism requiring an independent business valuator to annually determine the payor’s guideline income to avoid further litigation.

The court held that varying the order would require determining income in a manner inconsistent with the parties’ agreed mechanism and found no justification to depart from it.

Arguments relying on the principles in Boston v. Boston regarding equalized assets were rejected because income from a business does not deplete the capital asset.

The motion to vary was dismissed, while the opposing party’s cross‑motion succeeded, fixing arrears based on expert reports and ordering security for support due to the payor’s persistent non‑compliance.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order to seek table child support for summer months and contribution to the child's university expenses.

She also sought equal division of the proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned home.

The respondent father argued he was the sole owner of the home based on a 2002 unwitnessed 'Divorce Agreement' and his mortgage payments.

The court found the agreement unenforceable under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act and held the property was jointly owned.

The court ordered the net proceeds divided equally after crediting the father for lump sum mortgage payments.

The father was also ordered to pay summer table support and his proportionate share of the child's university expenses.

Following a nine-day custody trial, the respondents sought costs against the applicant.

The court found the applicant was largely unsuccessful in seeking custody or joint custody and obtained only limited access, far less than requested in pleadings, opening statements, or settlement offers.

The respondents’ positions and settlement offers were closer to the trial outcome, though aspects of their conduct were criticized, including limited bad-faith conduct during an earlier period and a contempt finding against one respondent.

Applying the Family Law Rules regarding success, offers to settle, and litigation conduct, the court awarded the applicant costs for the contempt finding but otherwise granted partial indemnity costs to one respondent.

After set-off, the applicant was ordered to pay net costs to that respondent.

The applicant step-mother sought joint custody and extensive access to her nine-year-old step-daughter following her separation from the respondent father.

The biological parents, who shared custody, opposed the application and sought to limit access, citing the child's resistance and the high conflict between the parties.

The court found that all three adults contributed to the deterioration of the child's relationship with the applicant.

The court denied joint custody but ordered limited, graduated access, conditional on all parties attending mandatory counseling to repair the relationship.

The respondent father was also found in contempt for failing to facilitate court-ordered access.

Additionally, the court resolved child support for the parties' biological child based on current income and ordered the applicant to remove the respondent from a joint line of credit.