Timothy Samuel Matthews

In a family law matter arising from the breakdown of a relationship, the respondent sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $28,800.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant submitted that each party should bear their own costs, or alternatively, that the respondent should pay costs to the applicant in the amount of $11,603.97 relating solely to the Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution process.

The court found that most outstanding issues were resolved through Minutes of Settlement with divided success between the parties.

The court declined to award costs, finding that it was unable to determine that one party was clearly successful or that one party clearly capitulated to the opposing party's position.

This endorsement resolves outstanding property issues between Katherine Britton and Nicholas Leigh following their separation.

The court determined entitlement to various personal property items, generally awarding items to the party with a receipt or clear evidence of ownership.

Items without clear ownership were placed in a "Coin Toss Pile" to be distributed by alternating selection after a coin toss.

The decision also addresses procedures for lost, destroyed, or loaned items and outlines compensation if a party can prove intentional loss or destruction by the other party.

This endorsement addresses the process for resolving outstanding property issues between the parties following a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) hearing.

The court sets out a step-by-step procedure for the parties to complete a chart detailing disputed assets, their value, and supporting evidence, with the aim of facilitating a final decision on division of property.

The approach emphasizes clarity, fairness, and finality, including a coin toss mechanism for assets that cannot be attributed to either party.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues between Katherine Britton and Nicholas Leigh following the breakdown of their relationship, including parenting matters for their child, Eleanor, and division of property.

The parties participated in a Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) hearing, resolved several issues, and set out procedures for travel, childcare, and communication.

Remaining property issues are to be discussed at a continuation of the JDR.

This appeal concerned a family law application for child support and related relief.

The appellant mother challenged three aspects of the lower court's decision: the dismissal of her claim for retroactive child support from 2006-2013, the calculation of her share of s. 7 expenses based on household income, and the termination of child support at age 25.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's findings that the parties' property agreement constituted special provisions offsetting retroactive child support, that apportioning s. 7 expenses based on household income was reasonable given the circumstances, and that the discretionary determination of child support termination at age 25 was not arbitrary.

The court emphasized the deferential standard of review for financial disputes in family law.

The mother appealed a trial judge's order regarding child support, challenging the retroactive period, termination age, imposed conditions, income calculation for the father, and inclusion of her new spouse's income for s. 7 expenses.

The appeal court upheld the retroactive support period and the termination age of 25, and the father's income calculation.

However, it found that several conditions imposed on the father's ongoing child support obligation were beyond the trial judge's jurisdiction and removed them.

The court also upheld the inclusion of the mother's new spouse's income for s. 7 expenses.

This decision addresses costs following a three-day trial where the applicant's claim for spousal support and imputation of income to the respondent was dismissed.

The court applied the pre-July 1, 2018 Family Law Rules, particularly Rule 24, which presumes a successful party is entitled to costs.

Factors considered included the importance and complexity of issues, parties' behaviour, lawyer rates, time spent, and financial circumstances.

Despite the respondent's success, the court adjusted the quantum of costs, taking into account the similar financial circumstances of both parties and the reasonableness of the applicant's litigation, ultimately awarding the respondent $22,052.68.