Sunday Olusola Adeyemi

This is a costs endorsement following a focused trial on child support obligations.

The applicant (mother) sought full recovery costs, arguing she was the successful party and the respondent (father) had acted unreasonably by failing to provide timely financial disclosure and not making a settlement offer.

The court found the mother was the much more successful party, but her offer to settle did not meet the threshold for full recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The father's conduct was deemed unreasonable, though not bad faith.

The court fixed the mother's costs at $3,600, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by the father in monthly installments.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support from September 2017 and imputation of the respondent father's income, along with contributions to the child's piano expenses.

The father sought support from November 2020 based on a lower income and argued against the piano expenses.

The court found the mother gave effective notice for retroactive support in June 2017, setting the presumptive start date to September 2017.

The court imputed the father's income for various years, finding his self-reported income unreliable and his financial disclosure inadequate and blameworthy.

The court also found the piano expenses to be eligible extraordinary expenses.

Child support arrears were fixed, and a payment schedule was ordered.