Sofia Dharamshi

The court awarded the respondent, Ana Tone, full indemnity costs totaling $165,696.48, plus $8,705.48 in outstanding costs, against the applicant, Raymond Tone, following a bitter family law trial.

The applicant was found largely at fault for rejecting multiple reasonable settlement offers and for unreasonable and bad faith conduct throughout the litigation, including prolonging the trial with irrelevant testimony and changing counsel repeatedly.

The issues were numerous and complex, and the respondent achieved highly successful results on nearly all matters, far exceeding her offers to settle.

The court also noted the applicant's conduct wasted significant public resources.

The trial addressed parenting, child support, spousal support, and property division following a short, high-conflict marriage.

The court granted the respondent sole decision-making authority for the children and primary residence, with the applicant having alternate weekend access.

The applicant's income was imputed to $60,000 (or $78,102 for 2018) for child support purposes due to intentional under-employment.

No spousal support was awarded.

The date of separation was determined as February 1, 2015, and the matrimonial home was held in joint tenancy, rejecting the applicant's resulting trust claim.

The applicant, Simon Gregory, sought confirmation of a provisional order from the Supreme Court of British Columbia concerning the termination of child support and the set-off of child support arrears.

The respondent, Geraldine Carmen Holmes, opposed aspects of the provisional order and sought costs.

The court confirmed the termination of child support for both children (Jordan and Bailey) as agreed.

On the contested issue of arrears, the court found the applicant owed $8,767.29 in arrears to the respondent, exceeding the applicant's claim of $1,255.71.

The court determined the respondent was the more successful party on the relevant contested issue and awarded her partial indemnity costs of $1,804.00, to be paid by the applicant within 30 days.

The court declined to address issues outside the scope of the provisional order, such as equalization payments or postsecondary expenses.

A confirmation hearing was held under ss. 18–19 of the Divorce Act regarding a provisional order issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia varying child support obligations between former spouses.

The responding party opposed confirmation of a provision offsetting child support arrears, arguing that outstanding arrears and unpaid section 7 educational expenses remained unresolved and that the moving party had failed to provide required financial disclosure.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to determine the proper calculation of arrears and proportional contributions to post‑secondary expenses.

Pursuant to s. 19(6) of the Divorce Act, the court remitted the matter to the issuing court in British Columbia for further evidence and adjourned the confirmation hearing.

This is a costs endorsement following a summary judgment motion in a family law matter.

The applicant was successful in obtaining custody of four children, restricted and supervised access, a restraining order, and imputed income for the respondent.

The respondent's motion for shared custody and other relief was dismissed.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant on a near-full recovery basis, considering the respondent's vexatious, manipulative, and harassing conduct throughout the proceedings, which significantly increased the applicant's legal fees.

The mother brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of four children, supervised access for the father, a restraining order, imputed income and child support.

The father opposed and brought a cross-motion seeking joint custody, mental health assessment of the mother, spousal support, and other relief.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the mother's motion.

The father's untreated mental health issues, refusal to comply with court orders, harassment of the mother, and lack of involvement with the children supported sole custody and supervised access.

The court imputed income of $22,000 to the father based on his education, work history, and capacity to earn.