Timothy Matthews

Following a motion addressing interim child support, interim spousal support, and interim access, the court issued a decision solely on costs.

The applicant had been successful in obtaining interim spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the discretion under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court considered the complexity of the motion, counsel time, settlement conduct, and proportionality.

Although the successful party sought $4,000 in costs, the court found the claim excessive for a relatively straightforward interim support motion.

Costs were reduced to an amount considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support and spousal support following separation after a marriage of approximately seven years, while the respondent sought interim access.

The parties resolved interim child support and access by agreement, leaving only interim spousal support for determination.

The court considered the parties’ respective incomes, the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and the respondent’s obligations to children in a new household.

Applying the principles from Fisher v. Fisher regarding responsibilities to second families, the court held that voluntarily assumed obligations toward a new partner and her children should not reduce the payor’s spousal support obligations to the first family, although the respondent’s obligations to his own two additional children were relevant.

Interim spousal support was ordered at the low end of the SSAG range in light of the respondent’s additional child obligations and travel costs associated with exercising access from a remote community.