Steven McCutcheon

This costs endorsement followed a motion where the Applicant was found to have acted unreasonably and in bad faith by disrupting a three-year status quo regarding child custody, primarily to avoid child support payments.

The Respondent was successful on the motion and sought full recovery costs.

The court found full recovery costs appropriate due to the Applicant's conduct but reduced the claimed amount from $11,400 to $9,000 plus H.S.T., rejecting the Applicant's impecuniosity argument given his strategic actions.

The parties separated after a 7-year marriage.

The applicant, a self-employed dentist, sought to enforce a spousal support waiver in their marriage contract and impute income to the respondent, a stay-at-home mother.

The court imputed an income of $37,500 to the respondent and determined the applicant's income at $330,000 by adding back personal expenses paid by his corporation and rejecting aggressive amortization deductions.

The court found the marriage contract explicitly permitted a review of the spousal support waiver upon the birth of a child, and awarded the respondent $4,800 monthly in spousal support, along with set-off child support.

Following the breakdown of a marriage with three children, the court addressed child support, spousal support, and equalization of property.

The court set the respondent’s income at $45,000 for child support purposes and ordered guideline child support of $858 per month.

The court imputed income of $25,000 to the applicant and determined that spousal support was not warranted under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The principal property dispute concerned the value of the respondent’s insurance Book of Business, with the court accepting the respondent’s expert valuation methodology distinguishing between a brokerage and a producer’s client list.

The court fixed the value of the Book of Business at $107,500 and ordered a modest equalization payment and reimbursement of certain household expenses.

Following a 28‑year unmarried relationship with two children, the parties litigated claims relating to child support, spousal support, and alleged unjust enrichment tied to a family‑owned food truck business.

The respondent asserted entitlement to an ownership interest or compensation for unpaid labour, alleging the parties jointly operated a profitable business generating undeclared income.

The court rejected the unjust enrichment claim, finding the applicant alone purchased the business from her father and that the respondent’s contributions did not enrich the applicant or increase the business’s value.

However, the court accepted evidence that the applicant understated income and imputed annual income of $100,000 for support purposes.

Orders were made for guideline child support, certain section 7 expenses, and a lump‑sum spousal support payment to assist the respondent’s transition to a reduced standard of living.

This is a costs decision following a seven-day family law trial concerning parenting arrangements and child support for a child.

The applicant was successful at trial, obtaining sole custody and child support arrears and ongoing support significantly more favorable than the respondent's offer to settle.

The applicant seeks $60,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent argues costs should not exceed $10,000 and seeks to attribute costs to the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court awards the applicant $59,500 in costs, finding the applicant acted reasonably, made a comprehensive offer to settle that was rejected, and achieved a result more favorable than the offer.

The respondent's conduct, while not unreasonable, resulted in an unnecessary trial that could have been avoided by accepting the settlement offer.

Trial decision concerning custody, access, and child support for a child born in 2006 to unmarried parents who never cohabited.

The mother sought sole custody and retroactive child support from birth.

The father sought joint custody with an alternating weekly schedule as recommended by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court found the mother was the primary caregiver and granted her sole custody, rejecting the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation for joint custody based on the parties' inability to communicate and cooperate.

The court ordered the father to pay child support retroactive to the child's birth and rejected many of his claimed business expense deductions as illegitimate.

The court determined costs following a family law trial concerning child support.

The successful party sought full indemnity costs of approximately $45,525 or alternatively partial indemnity costs of approximately $34,474, while the opposing party argued that no costs should be ordered.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that the successful party was entitled to costs despite not obtaining the full relief sought.

The court considered that the unsuccessful party had taken an aggressive litigation position and underestimated income, while also noting the absence of an offer to settle and excessive time spent litigating income issues.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $20,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought retroactive child support and contribution toward post-secondary education expenses for the parties’ adult child.

The respondent had failed to provide annual financial disclosure as required by a prior support order and continued paying child support based on an outdated imputed income despite increases in income and retained corporate earnings.

The court found the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct and imputed additional income, including retained earnings, personal benefits, and income splitting with a spouse.

Applying the principles in S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.), the court ordered retroactive child support for three years and determined the adult child regained “child of the marriage” status upon returning to full-time university studies.

The respondent was ordered to contribute a fixed annual amount toward the child’s post‑secondary education expenses.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations and to terminate child support for an adult child.

The court dismissed the claims to terminate or reduce spousal support.

The court also dismissed the claim to terminate child support, but recalculated the ongoing child support obligations based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines, accounting for a split custody arrangement and the adult child's post-secondary education expenses.

The court ordered proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses and set out a schedule for the payment of post-secondary costs.

The father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support and child support obligations.

He argued that the mother had alienated the children from him, constituting a material change in circumstances and unconscionable conduct.

He also sought to terminate child support for his adult son, arguing the son had unilaterally repudiated their relationship.

The court dismissed the claims to terminate spousal support and child support for the adult son, finding that both parents contributed to the family breakdown and the father failed to prove unilateral repudiation.

The court adjusted child support to reflect a split custody arrangement and the adult son's post-secondary education expenses.