Wendela M. Napier

The respondent father brought a motion to change an interim support order, claiming he had overpaid support and was owed money.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for payment of child and spousal support arrears based on Minutes of Settlement.

The court calculated the respondent's obligations under the Minutes of Settlement, including child support, extra-curricular expenses, and post-secondary education costs, totaling $281,720.97.

After deducting the $234,783.89 the respondent had already paid, the court ordered the respondent to pay the remaining $46,937.08 in arrears.

A costs decision following a motion to change child support.

The applicant sought $15,000 in costs (60% of total costs claimed of $24,000), while the respondent argued for $4,000.

The applicant was largely successful in obtaining the relief sought, including the precise table amount of support, nearly all of the post-secondary contribution, and a considerable amount of arrears.

The court awarded $15,000 in costs, finding the applicant acted reasonably by making two reasonable offers to settle that came very close to the ultimate result, while the respondent acted unreasonably by failing to make any offer to settle, failing to make timely disclosure, and taking unreasonable positions on multiple issues.

Motion to change child support provisions of a December 7, 2011 order.

The applicant sought increased table support and arrears of post-secondary education expenses.

The respondent sought reduced support, termination of support effective April 30, 2015, and credits for overpayments.

The court varied the order to establish new table support amounts based on imputed income, calculated arrears of support, and ordered prospective contributions to post-secondary education expenses.

The court declined to determine whether support should continue beyond the child's first degree, finding the evidence premature and insufficient.

The respondent (mother) brought a motion for interim child support and interim spousal support under the Family Law Act.

The parties cohabited from June 2007 until summer 2012 and have one child with equal shared residential care.

The primary dispute concerned the applicant's income for child support calculation purposes: the applicant argued for $66,138 based on year-to-date 2014 earnings, while the respondent argued for $72,328 based on the applicant's 2013 tax return.

The court determined that the applicant's income should be $72,328 pursuant to section 16 of the Child Support Guidelines, declining to adjust under section 17 based on the presumptive reliance on tax return income and the minimal difference in monthly support ($60).

The court ordered interim child support of $403 per month effective June 1, 2014, but declined to award interim spousal support, finding insufficient evidence and noting the respondent had managed without spousal support since separation.

Following a family law decision determining a child’s principal residence and adjusting child support, the successful party sought costs of $10,000.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considered the complexity of the issues, the conduct of both parties, the reasonableness of counsel’s rates, and the overall fairness of the claimed costs.

The court noted that the unsuccessful party, who was self‑represented, had behaved reasonably, while the successful party had failed to timely disclose an income increase affecting support obligations.

After adjusting the costs outline to remove inappropriate or duplicated charges and considering the financial circumstances of the unsuccessful party, the court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs.

The costs were ordered payable by installments with interest on any outstanding balance.

The moving party brought a motion to vary a prior consent judgment concerning custody, child support, and related financial issues.

One child had begun residing primarily with the moving party, while the other continued to share time between both households.

The court considered the best interests of the child under s. 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act and accepted the older child’s preference to live primarily with the moving party.

The court also determined both parties’ incomes for support purposes, imputing income where deductions or reporting were not adequately justified under the Child Support Guidelines.

Applying principles governing hybrid custody arrangements, the court varied the support order, recalculated retroactive obligations, and declined to vary spousal support due to the absence of a material change in circumstances.

Following a successful motion for child support, retroactive support, and post‑secondary expenses, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court addressed whether a litigant represented through a subsidized legal services plan was limited to recovering costs based on the reduced hourly rate actually charged by counsel.

Applying the objectives of costs awards under the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, the court held that the retainer arrangement did not cap recoverable costs and that costs should reflect reasonable market rates.

Because the respondent behaved unreasonably in disclosure and failed to accept favourable settlement offers, the applicant was entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity basis, including costs of the settlement conference and motion.

Travel time was reduced by 50% and the final costs award was fixed at $19,034 inclusive of HST.

The applicant father brought a motion regarding child support for his three children, including his adult stepdaughter who was attending university away from home and had become estranged from him after discovering his marital infidelity.

The mother sought interim child support, a contribution to university expenses, and orthodontic costs.

The court found that the stepdaughter remained a child of the marriage and her estrangement did not disentitle her to support.

The court imputed $5,000 in undeclared hockey refereeing income to the father, found the table amount inappropriate for a child living away for university, and ordered the father to pay a proportionate share of the university expenses after deducting the child's contribution.