William Cornelius Kort

Katherine sought full indemnity costs after a successful spousal support trial.

Christopher argued for no costs or a fraction.

The court found Katherine "far more successful" on key issues and her offers more reasonable, while Christopher's behavior was "far less reasonable," including unilaterally withdrawing from a joint retainer, tardy disclosure, and deliberately disobeying a temporary support order.

The court clarified that the recent amendment to Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, allowing a trial judge to award costs for prior steps even if not reserved, is procedural and applies retroactively.

However, the judge deferred the final determination of costs for prior conferences, requesting further submissions from both parties.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change a separation agreement regarding child and spousal support obligations.

The applicant sought to reduce support based on loss of employment and subsequent new employment at a lower income.

The applicant was substantially successful, obtaining a reduction in spousal support and rescission of arrears, but was unsuccessful in obtaining a time-limited termination of spousal support.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, finding he was the more successful party overall, while considering the respondent's limited financial circumstances and the reasonableness of both parties' conduct.

Motion to change child and spousal support provisions of a separation agreement dated June 18, 2009.

The applicant sought to reduce support obligations based on material change in financial circumstances following job loss and subsequent re-employment at significantly lower income.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought to have income imputed to the applicant.

The court found a material change in circumstances, rejected income imputation, reduced child support based on actual income of $72,000, maintained spousal support at $700 per month (reduced from $1,654) without a termination date due to respondent's ongoing childcare responsibilities for two children with autism spectrum disorder, and rescinded arrears accumulated since October 1, 2013.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change child support obligations under a separation agreement.

The applicant sought to reduce his support obligations following job loss in March 2011.

The respondent initially agreed to a temporary reduction but ultimately the parties settled with the applicant increasing his support obligation.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a full recovery basis, finding that the applicant acted unreasonably and in bad faith by failing to disclose that he had obtained new employment at the end of December 2011, contrary to a court order requiring him to advise forthwith of any employment.

This non-disclosure prolonged the proceedings unnecessarily and caused the respondent to incur additional legal expenses.