2 total
The court awarded the successful respondent $4,000 in partial indemnity costs, declining to award substantial indemnity costs as the applicant's conduct was not egregious.
This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the Respondent to increase parenting time.
The Respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $9,000, alleging unreasonable behaviour by the Applicant in refusing to negotiate and ignoring communications.
The Applicant argued the docketed time was excessive and that a punitive costs order was unwarranted, proposing $3,312 plus HST.
The court found that punitive costs were not appropriate as the conduct was not egregious and Rule 18 did not apply.
The court awarded the Respondent $4,000 plus HST in partial indemnity costs, finding the total time spent by the Respondent was higher than reasonably anticipated by the Applicant.
The court granted the applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding the surrounding farm property excluded.
The Applicant sought a temporary order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and farm property.
The Respondent brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession, a restraining order, and a non-depletion order.
The court determined that the farm property, being primarily used for business, did not form part of the matrimonial home for the purpose of exclusive possession under the Family Law Act, restricting the matrimonial home to the residence and immediate yard.
Considering the best interests of the children, financial positions, and the short duration of the marriage, the court granted the Applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding the Respondent's reasons for remaining insufficient and her business not tied to the property.
The Respondent's requests for a restraining order and a non-depletion order were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of fear for safety or depletion of assets.
