Suzanne E. Galarneau

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion to change regarding custody, access, and child support.

The court found the applicant was substantially successful and presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court noted the respondent's unreasonable conduct in delaying the proceedings and failing to provide complete financial disclosure.

The applicant was awarded fixed costs of $40,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a prior order, seeking sole custody, termination of his child support obligation, and an order for the respondent mother to pay child support.

The motion also addressed the mother's financial disclosure obligations and the imputation of income for child support purposes.

The court found the mother's financial disclosure to be unduly delayed and inconsistent.

It imputed income to the mother based on her annual expenses, which were funded by her investment assets, rather than her declared line 150 income.

The court ordered the mother to pay child support and section 7 expenses based on the imputed income, retroactive to December 1, 2014.

The court also addressed the costs of the custody and access portion of the motion, finding that the father was entitled to costs up to the point the mother abandoned her custody claim.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion by the Respondent to vary a final order concerning child support, retroactive adjustments, and section 7 expenses.

The court found mixed success for both parties on the substantive issues.

Considering the factors under Family Law Rule 24(11), including the importance and complexity of the issues, the reasonableness of each party's behavior, and counsel's rates, the court determined that the Respondent's unreasonable conduct, such as failing to comply with disclosure orders and a settlement conference requirement, warranted no award of costs to either party despite the mixed outcome.