Theresa J. Van Luven

The applicant brought a motion seeking to foreclose the respondent from participating in an upcoming motion to strike because he remained in breach of an $8,012.82 costs order.

The respondent argued that his recent bankruptcy filing stayed the enforcement of the costs order and that the applicant was required to file a proof of claim.

The court held that the costs order related to spousal support, survived bankruptcy, and was not stayed.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding costs by a specific date, failing which his ongoing breach would be considered during the motion to strike.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change seeking to terminate child support and gain sole custody.

The responding party (former wife) sought increased child and spousal support, and an extension of spousal support beyond the previously ordered termination date.

The court dismissed the request to extend spousal support, finding no material change in circumstances and that the responding party was capable of working.

However, the court found the moving party's claimed business expenses were unreasonable and imputed his income at 50% of his gross professional income, ordering retroactive and ongoing increases to child and spousal support.

Following the settlement of a family law application regarding custody and mobility, the respondent sought costs on the basis that he was the successful party and had made an informal offer to settle.

The applicant opposed the costs claim, arguing she had proposed a private assessment early on and voluntarily agreed to pay child support.

The court found that neither party could be declared a clear winner and that the respondent's informal offer did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 18.

To encourage the judicious settlement of family disputes, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The responding mother opposed a father's motion for leave and motion to change on the basis of repeated non-compliance with prior family court orders, unpaid costs, substantial child support arrears, failure to transfer an RRSP as previously ordered, and inadequate financial disclosure.

The court held that non-payment of costs alone should not necessarily bar access-related proceedings, but found the moving father's broader non-compliance and deficient materials fatal to leave on the financial and support issues.

Leave was dismissed, with permission to reapply upon detailed third-party supported financial disclosure.

The motion to change was stayed for one year pending leave, while limited leave was granted to seek variation of supervised access if supported by recommendations from child protection authorities and a physician.

Following a successful motion for interim spousal and child support, the applicant sought costs of the motion.

The court noted that the applicant obtained an award exceeding the amount contained in her offer to settle, while the respondent made no formal offer to settle and failed to respond to the applicant’s written costs submissions within the time set by the court.

The court found the draft Bill of Costs reasonable.

Costs were therefore awarded in favour of the applicant in the amount claimed.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs of the motion forthwith.