Terry W. Hainsworth

Following a three-day family law hearing concerning child support for an adult child pursuing post-secondary education, the court addressed costs.

The litigation history between the parties was extensive and acrimonious, involving numerous motions and prior proceedings regarding child support obligations.

The self-represented applicant sought costs on the basis that the final award marginally exceeded the respondent’s final offer to settle.

The court found that both parties engaged in disproportionate and unproductive litigation conduct, including excessive disclosure demands and prolonged disputes over relatively limited financial issues.

Considering the mixed success and conduct of both parties, the court concluded that neither party should receive costs.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent brought a motion seeking to dismiss or stay the applicant’s motion to change a separation agreement on the basis that the applicant had failed to pay approximately $42,000 in spousal support arrears.

The court considered whether such a motion could proceed before a case conference under the Family Law Rules.

The court held that a request to stay or dismiss a motion to change due to non‑payment of support arrears engages substantive rights and therefore cannot be heard prior to a case conference unless an exception applies.

The respondent failed to demonstrate urgency or hardship sufficient to bypass the conference requirement.

The motion was therefore adjourned to be addressed after the scheduled case conference.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, and for the transfer of a property to joint names pursuant to an interim separation agreement.

The parties, both physicians, had a significant income disparity.

The court ordered the respondent to transfer the property to joint names, fixed the applicant's income at $60,000 and the respondent's income at $550,000, and ordered the respondent to pay $6,572 monthly in table child support, $10,500 monthly in spousal support, and 69.5% of section 7 expenses.

Following trial reasons dealing with child support, spousal support, and division of the children’s RESPs, the court addressed costs where the parties were unable to agree.

The applicant sought recovery of legal fees and disbursements after filing a bill of costs exceeding $46,000.

The respondent accepted most of the time claimed but argued for a reduction based on partial indemnity and divided success, particularly relating to an unsuccessful retroactive section 7 expense claim.

Applying Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules and considering the parties’ offers to settle, the court reduced the fees and certain disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $32,789.43 inclusive of HST and disbursements and were ordered to constitute a support order enforceable under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

The applicant and respondent separated after a long relationship involving chicken farming.

The applicant claimed that a barn and chicken quotas registered in the respondent's name were held in trust for him or that she was unjustly enriched.

The court found no evidence of an express trust and no unjust enrichment, as the respondent had financed and worked for her own assets.

The court ordered the applicant to pay an equalization payment of $55,798.83, granted joint custody of their child with primary residence to the respondent, and ordered the applicant to pay $600 per month in child support.

The moving party father brought a motion to change child support after one of the children moved in with him.

The responding party mother sought a review of spousal support, retroactive and prospective section 7 expenses for their daughter's competitive dance, and distribution of RESP funds.

The court found the father had manipulated his corporate income and imputed additional pre-tax corporate profits to him for support purposes.

Spousal support was ordered to continue indefinitely at $4,000 per month, though the mother was required to make efforts to become self-sufficient.

The mother's claim for retroactive section 7 expenses was dismissed due to lack of notice, but prospective expenses were ordered.

The RESP capital was distributed between the parties.