Thomas R. Hunter

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

The Applicant sought $1,010 in costs as the successful party to a motion brought by the Respondent.

The Respondent argued against a costs order due to his inability to pay and the Applicant's representation by a staff lawyer at ILSO.

The court considered the Respondent's delay in complying with a previous order to collapse his RRSP and apply proceeds to an outstanding costs award.

Despite the Applicant's claim for costs based on counsel's time, the court awarded partial costs, fixing them at $600, to be added to existing outstanding costs.

The Respondent was also prohibited from bringing a motion to change until all costs are paid in full.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a prior order seeking to terminate child support and special expenses for two adult children attending post-secondary education.

The court considered the definition of “child of the marriage” under the Divorce Act and the application of sections 3 and 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

Applying the factors from Rosenberg v. Rosenberg and related authorities, the court found both children remained financially dependent while enrolled full-time in post-secondary programs and therefore continued to qualify as children of the marriage.

The court rejected the request to reduce basic child support to zero and held the Guidelines table amount remained appropriate.

The father was also ordered to contribute one-third of the children’s post-secondary education expenses beginning with the 2015–2016 academic year, conditional on proper disclosure of educational details.

Following a trial on spousal support where the applicant was the more successful party, both parties sought costs.

The court found that the respondent failed to make reasonable offers to settle and maintained an unreasonably high demand for spousal support, which necessitated the trial.

The applicant was awarded costs fixed at $45,000 on a partial recovery basis.

After the parties settled all substantive family law issues by Minutes of Settlement, the court was required to determine entitlement to and quantum of costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that where litigation resolves by settlement, the “divided success” approach is generally appropriate rather than a strict winner‑loser analysis.

Reviewing the pleadings, offers to settle, and final settlement terms, the court found divided success on most issues but concluded the applicant was more successful regarding the central property dispute involving the matrimonial home.

The court also found the respondent’s delays in disclosure and negotiations contributed to prolonging the litigation.

Partial costs of $17,500 were awarded to the applicant.

Following a 24‑year marriage without children, the primary issue at trial was spousal support after separation and equalization of property.

The respondent sought significant retroactive and ongoing support based on disability and medical expenses, while the applicant argued he should not pay ongoing support after retirement and relied on the principle against double recovery from pension income.

The court awarded retroactive and interim support largely within the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and imputed employment income to the applicant for one additional year due to a retirement decision made shortly before trial.

After June 2016, the court declined to order further support, holding that the respondent had not established an exception to the rule against “double dipping” articulated in Boston v. Boston.

The court also granted a divorce and required the applicant to maintain life insurance to secure the temporary support obligation.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sought a warrant of committal against a support payor for failing to comply with a final default hearing order requiring payment of substantial spousal support arrears and costs.

The arrears exceeded $899,000 at the time of the motion.

The court considered whether the payor had demonstrated a material change in circumstances since the prior default hearing sufficient to explain his non-payment under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act.

The respondent argued inability to pay based on caregiving responsibilities for his elderly mother, alleged issues with court file documentation, unsuccessful attempts to vary support, and a rejected settlement proposal involving his RRSP.

The court rejected these explanations, found no material change in circumstances, and concluded the respondent had wilfully disregarded court orders.

A warrant of committal was granted with intermittent incarceration to encourage compliance with the support obligations.

Following competing motions regarding custody and access, the court had granted the mother sole custody while permitting the father increasing unsupervised access subject to counselling.

Both parties achieved partial success, though the applicant was more successful overall.

In determining costs, the court considered the principles under the Courts of Justice Act and the Family Law Rules regarding success, reasonableness of conduct, proportionality, and the absence of settlement offers.

The applicant sought full or substantial indemnity costs based on the respondent’s past conduct, but the court found that such conduct had already been addressed through the substantive custody and counselling orders.

Costs were therefore awarded on a partial indemnity basis, reduced to reflect duplication and excessive docketed hours.

In a family law motion, the respondent sought an order settling the wording of minutes of settlement executed by the parties after negotiations in court.

The parties had signed handwritten Minutes of Settlement but later exchanged revised typed versions containing additional terms, which prevented final agreement.

The court determined which provisions from the black-lined version of the minutes would form part of the final order and added clarifying provisions regarding international travel with the children, asset division, and confirmation of closure of joint lines of credit.

The court held that the binding settlement was the one entered on January 23, 2013, subject only to the agreed amendments addressed during the motion.

The respondent’s request for costs was dismissed.