Thomas J Carten

Following a trial on child and spousal support where the respondent was successful in resisting the applicant's claim to impute income, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant argued for divided success, but the court found the respondent was the successful party on the focal issue.

After considering the offers to settle, the reasonableness of the parties' behaviour, and the travel costs claimed for out-of-town counsel, the court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $30,000 for fees and $5,000 for disbursements, plus HST.

The parties separated after a five-year relationship.

They agreed to shared custody of their two children.

The applicant mother, a full-time teacher, sought to impute income to the respondent father, arguing he was intentionally underemployed as a supply teacher.

The court declined to impute income, finding the father's pursuit of a full-time teaching career reasonable despite the delay caused by hiring regulations.

Applying the Contino framework for shared custody, the court ordered the mother to pay $750 monthly in child support.

The court also awarded the father $250 monthly in spousal support on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, recognizing his career sacrifices to care for the children during the marriage.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change brought by the mother seeking to relocate the child from Winnipeg, Manitoba to Victoria, British Columbia.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding she failed to establish a material change in circumstances.

The mother's case rested primarily on an employment offer that the court found was not bona fide but rather a strategic move.

The father, as the successful party, sought costs from the date of his offer to settle.

The court awarded costs to the father on a full recovery basis from the date of the offer to settle, finding the mother acted unreasonably in pursuing litigation based on a non-genuine employment offer.

The applicant sought to change an existing consent order to relocate with the child from Winnipeg, Manitoba to Victoria, British Columbia.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought custody of the child.

The court applied the two-part test from Gordon v. Goertz and found that the applicant failed to establish a material change in circumstances.

The court determined that all circumstances relied upon by the applicant were either known and foreseeable at the time of the consent order or did not meet the threshold for material change.

The motion was dismissed.

A costs decision following a family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support.

The applicant was substantially successful on most issues, winning on seven key matters including shared parenting transition day, texting provisions, travel notice requirements, child support calculation methodology, and dance cost contributions.

The respondent succeeded only on the child support arrears quantum issue.

The court found the matter should have been resolved by motion rather than full trial, as all issues had been resolved until the respondent's counsel took control in fall 2014.

The applicant made a reasonable settlement offer that the respondent rejected on a vindictive basis.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a party-to-party basis pre-trial and on a full recovery basis for trial costs.

A motion to change a final family order from April 22, 2010 concerning joint custody, access, and child support for two children.

The applicant sought to maintain a Monday-to-Monday custody exchange schedule agreed upon in September 2014, reduce child support based on a material change in income due to job changes and physical disability, and adjust extraordinary expenses.

The respondent sought to revert to a Wednesday-to-Wednesday exchange and average the applicant's income over three years including an inheritance.

The court found a material change in circumstances, maintained the Monday-to-Monday exchange, reduced ongoing child support to reflect the applicant's lower current income, calculated arrears including the inheritance for 2013 only, and adjusted extraordinary expenses to be proportional to each party's income.

A custody and access dispute between two parents following separation.

The father sought sole custody and limited access for the mother, while the mother sought shared parenting arrangements.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer investigated and recommended sole custody to the father with specified access to the mother.

However, after a full trial, the court found that the father had engaged in parental alienation, interference with the mother's access time, and domestic violence.

The court rejected the OCL recommendations and instead ordered a parallel parenting arrangement with rotating weekly residence of the children, finding that the father was unable to facilitate meaningful contact between the children and their mother.

The applicant brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order that required the respondent to pay $3,400 per month.

She argued the respondent had misrepresented his income at a case conference after a T‑4 later showed significantly higher income than initially reported.

The respondent contended that a large portion of the reported income consisted of taxable benefits for room and board while working at a remote Nunavut mining site and did not represent actual cash flow.

The court held that the taxable benefits were necessary to allow the respondent to earn his employment income and did not justify revising the interim support amount.

Finding no material change in circumstances, the court declined to increase the interim support and emphasized that interim motions are summary in nature pending trial.