Steven David James Kogon

The respondent brought a motion to add the biological father of one of the children as a party to a motion to change a separation agreement.

The respondent sought to have the biological father contribute to child support.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that a separate application would be required to seek contribution from a biological parent.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that the procedures for a motion to change do not permit the addition of a new party, and that the existence of the biological father does not constitute a material change in circumstances between the original parties to the separation agreement.

This is a costs endorsement following a six-day family law trial involving custody and access of a child, determination of child support, and enforcement of spousal support obligations under a separation agreement.

The mother was substantially successful at trial, obtaining sole custody and a child support order of $982 per month, with spousal support continuing as agreed.

The father's position on parental alienation was rejected.

The court awarded the mother partial recovery of costs at $25,000, with $12,500 to be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office at a rate of no less than $500 per month and the remainder payable within 60 days.

A motion to change child support provisions resulted in a settlement at the first case conference where the father agreed to pay the mother $224 per month in child support and hockey expenses were designated as a section 7 expense.

Both parties sought costs on a full-recovery basis.

The court found that while the mother's conduct in bypassing the contractual mediation/arbitration process was unreasonable, the father's focus on procedural issues also unnecessarily increased costs.

Given the divided success, settlement between parties, and the mother's limited financial resources following job loss, the court awarded no costs to either party.

The applicant mother sought to increase child support, obtain retroactive child support from January 1, 2009, enforce spousal support arrears, and change access provisions to be at the child's discretion.

The respondent father sought custody of the child and termination of spousal support, alleging deliberate parental alienation by the mother.

The court found that while both parents contributed to the estrangement between the father and 16-year-old daughter, there was no deliberate parental alienation.

The court maintained sole custody with the mother, ordered supervised access with a therapist followed by graduated unsupervised access, denied retroactive child support for 2007-2011, adjusted ongoing child support to $982 per month based on current income, and maintained spousal support obligations with arrears fixed at $36,678.