Tamara Scarowsky

Following a family law trial regarding property division and spousal support, the parties could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought $40,000 in costs, relying on an offer to settle that was more favourable than the trial outcome.

The court found the applicant beat his offer and was presumptively entitled to costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

However, because the applicant failed to provide a proper bill of costs, the court declined to assess his 29 separate statements of account and instead fixed costs at $30,000, using the respondent's costs as a guide.

The father brought a motion to change a 2009 final order, seeking retroactive elimination and reimbursement of child support on the basis that the child resided with him at least 40% of the time.

The mother opposed the motion and sought retroactive child support and section 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding his evidence regarding the child's residency inaccurate and unreliable.

The court also dismissed the mother's claim for retroactive child support due to unreasonable delay, but granted her claim for retroactive section 7 expenses limited to the three years prior to the proceedings.

The court further ordered the proportionate sharing of future university expenses.