Trent Zimmerman

Following the death of the children's mother, both the biological father and the stepfather brought motions seeking primary care of the four children.

The court found that the mother's death constituted a material change in circumstances but determined it was in the children's best interests to remain in the primary care of their stepfather, who provided stability and support alongside the maternal grandparents.

The biological father's request for primary care was dismissed, but his parenting time was increased.

This is a costs endorsement following motions for divorce and corollary relief, specifically concerning parenting time.

The court reviewed the original decision and offers to settle, applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The Applicant was found to be more successful on the parenting motion, as the ordered shared parenting regime more closely reflected his offer.

The Applicant was awarded $1500 plus GST in costs, payable by the Respondent.

However, payment of these costs was deferred until all issues in the litigation are concluded, to prevent the weaponization of interim costs in a high-conflict family case.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision allowing an appeal and setting aside an order made at trial.

The appellant was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $10,000 all inclusive.

The court declined to determine costs of the motion below, instead leaving that matter to the trial judge to decide after the trial resumes and all outstanding issues have been adjudicated upon, taking into account the result on appeal and any Rule 49 offers.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision that structured settlement annuity payments received by the appellant should be treated as property rather than income under the Family Law Act.

The trial judge had found that the annuity payments fell within the definition of property and were not excluded property under section 4(2)3 of the Act, and therefore should not be treated as income for spousal support purposes.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that structured settlement annuity payments should be treated as income, not property, for purposes of the Act.