Thomas Calhoun Hunter

Following a 10-day trial regarding parenting time and a request for a permanent restraining order, both parties sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $37,000.

The court found that neither party was entirely successful, as the applicant did not obtain a restraining order or a no-parenting-time order, and the respondent did not obtain the parenting time recommended by the OCL.

Furthermore, the court determined that both parties behaved unreasonably during the litigation, negatively impacting the child.

Consequently, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The parties, married for almost six years, separated in 2017.

The Applicant sought divorce, parenting relief, child and spousal support, and equalization.

The Respondent sought similar relief.

The court determined the parties' incomes for support purposes, found the Respondent entitled to spousal support for eight years commencing January 1, 2018, and ordered the Applicant to pay an equalization payment of $35,461.38 after post-separation adjustments.

The court also resolved outstanding holiday parenting time, ordering shared time for Easter and Thanksgiving weekends, and alternating Halloween.

In a trial continuation regarding parenting time and a restraining order, the court considered the father's request for unsupervised parenting time with his youngest child and the mother's request for a final restraining order.

The court found that the father had engaged in family violence and struggled with emotional control, while the mother had failed to actively encourage the child's relationship with the father.

The court ordered the father to attend individual therapy and reunification counselling before commencing supervised parenting time.

The mother's request for a final restraining order was dismissed, but a no-contact order was issued under the Children's Law Reform Act.

Following an uncontested trial where the applicant was entirely successful, the applicant sought full indemnity costs.

The court found that the respondent's litigation conduct was unreasonable, motivated by bad faith, and intended to inflict financial and emotional harm.

The applicant had also made two offers to settle that were more favourable than the trial outcome.

The court awarded the applicant full indemnity costs in the amount of $121,285.48.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant sought a divorce, enforcement of a prenuptial agreement, repayment of loans, a vesting order for the respondent's watch collection, and a final restraining order.

The court found the prenuptial agreement valid and binding, confirming the applicant's sole ownership of her home.

The court ordered the respondent to repay over $41,000 in loans and $19,000 for unreturned rings.

Due to the respondent's history of non-compliance with court orders, the court vested ownership of his watch collection in the applicant to offset his debts.

A five-year restraining order was also granted due to a documented history of physical and emotional abuse.

The applicant brought a motion on the first day of trial to strike the respondent's Answer due to his repeated failure to comply with court orders and the Family Law Rules.

The respondent had failed to provide sworn financial statements, failed to pay outstanding costs awards, failed to abide by timelines, and served hundreds of irrelevant documents on the eve of trial.

The court applied the three-pronged test for striking pleadings and found that the respondent's conduct was willful, vexatious, and wasteful.

The court struck the respondent's Answer and limited his participation in the trial to cross-examination and closing submissions, conditional upon his payment of outstanding costs.

The applicant sought costs for successfully opposing the respondent's request to have his motion to change child support and other relief heard urgently during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The court denied the urgency request due to evidentiary deficiencies in the respondent's materials.

While the applicant was entitled to costs, the court found the time spent preparing the response excessive for an urgency determination, reducing the requested amount from $2,938.49 to $650.

The respondent was granted 30 days to rectify his materials and renew his urgency request, with specific payment terms for costs depending on his actions.

The respondent sought leave to bring an urgent motion to change a prior order regarding access, a restraining order, and child support, citing the COVID-19 crisis.

The court denied the request, finding that a motion to change was not applicable to temporary orders for access and the restraining order, and that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidentiary foundation for an urgent reduction in child support, particularly regarding his income and job search efforts.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's pleadings or, alternatively, require security for costs, primarily due to the respondent's failure to pay a $22,900 cost order.

The court found the respondent's non-payment to be willful and egregious, evidenced by extensive discretionary travel.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings but allowed for reinstatement upon payment of $9,000 to the applicant by certified cheque, cash, or bank draft by March 13, 2020.

Additionally, interim spousal support payable to the respondent was stayed pending trial.

The motion for security for costs was denied as some of the respondent's claims were not entirely devoid of merit.

The moving party brought a motion to strike the responding party's motion to change a final parenting order, arguing that the responding party had failed to pay a previous costs award of $20,201.

Alternatively, the moving party sought an order requiring the responding party to post $60,000 in security for costs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the unpaid costs were subject to a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and therefore did not constitute wilful non-compliance.

The court also declined to order security for costs, concluding that the responding party's motion raised genuine issues regarding the child's best interests and that such an order would act as an unjust financial roadblock.

The applicant father brought a motion alleging the respondent mother breached a previous court order requiring her to return the children to the Eganville area and re-establish residency within a 25-km radius of the local school's catchment area.

The court found that the mother's residence at a cabin 37 km away did not technically breach the order, but noted concerns about her continuing ties to Ottawa.

The court declined to impose sanctions but issued supplementary directions requiring transparency about the children's whereabouts and overnight stays.

The applicant and respondent brought motions concerning various family law issues following their separation.

Key issues included the status of the matrimonial home, ownership of a dog, temporary spousal support, repayment of alleged loans, and the return of jewellery.

The court declined to make a final declaration on the matrimonial home and loans, leaving these for trial, but granted the applicant ownership of the dog and ordered the respondent to return the rings.

The respondent was granted temporary spousal support and continued health benefits.

This is a costs endorsement arising from an interim motion where the applicant was substantially successful on relocation and shared parenting issues.

The applicant sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the applicant's success, the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rate, a good offer to settle made by the applicant, and the respondent's inability to pay.

Costs were fixed at $14,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable by the respondent within 90 days.

The applicant and respondent brought cross-motions concerning the respondent's unilateral relocation with the children from Eganville to Ottawa.

The court considered the children's best interests, applying principles from mobility cases.

It found that the respondent had not demonstrated a valid and compelling parent-based reason for the move and that remaining in Eganville offered identifiable benefits for the children, including easier contact with their father and paternal grandparents, and stability for the older child.

The court ordered the respondent to re-establish residency near Eganville within 60 days, failing which the children would reside with the applicant.

A shared parenting regime was ordered upon the respondent's return.

Following the applicant's successful motion for exclusive possession of the family home and a temporary restraining order, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer to settle, and on a full indemnity basis thereafter.

After reducing the claimed hours for being excessive, the court fixed the costs payable by the respondent at $22,900.

The applicant sought exclusive possession of the parties' Ottawa home and a restraining order against the self-represented respondent.

The court granted the applicant interim exclusive possession of the home, finding that the respondent's psychological, emotional, and other abusive behaviour constituted "violence" under s. 24(3)(f) of the Family Law Act.

An interim restraining order was also issued, as the applicant had reasonable grounds to fear for her safety.

The respondent's cross-motion was adjourned due to his failure to properly file necessary financial and other documents.

The moving party's motion to change a custody and access order, based on unfounded allegations of parental alienation, was dismissed.

The responding party, having been entirely successful, sought costs of $21,048.51.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, noting the moving party's unreasonable behaviour in pursuing unfounded allegations.

The court also applied Rule 18(14), as the responding party had made an offer to settle that was more favourable than the final order.

The court awarded the responding party partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter, fixing total costs at $20,201.01.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final joint custody order, seeking a week-on, week-off shared parenting arrangement.

He alleged the respondent mother engaged in parental alienation and repeatedly breached the existing order, constituting a material change in circumstances.

The court found that while the parties remained in a high-conflict relationship with poor communication, the child was thriving and there was no material change in the child's needs or circumstances.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The parties in a family law matter submitted costs submissions several months after the extended deadline ordered by the court, without providing any explanation for the delay.

The judge, who was in his final sitting week before retirement and had already disposed of his notes, refused to consider the late submissions.

The judge directed counsel to take the matter up with the Local Administrative Judge for Family or the Regional Senior Judge if they wished to pursue it further.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking to vary a child support order to reflect the applicant father's actual income retroactively, for spousal support retroactive to June 1, 2015, to vary daycare expense sharing retroactively, for disclosure of rental property leases, and for costs.

The court granted the variations for child support and daycare expenses based on the father's actual income, ordered retroactive spousal support, and ordered the father to provide further disclosure regarding his rental properties.

The court found the respondent had made a prima facie case for interim spousal support and rejected the applicant's hardship argument given his property acquisitions.