William Harvey Abbott

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal of a spousal support decision.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order that reduced and then terminated spousal support payments.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and modified the support order.

The court then addressed costs for the trial below, determining that the appellant was the more successful party and entitled to costs despite the respondent's arguments regarding divided success and the appellant's disclosure failures.

The court awarded costs of $24,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as support.

The applicant, Ms. Hebo, sought supplementary costs of $25,000 following a family law trial and an initial costs decision, and requested that costs awarded for support issues be made a charge on the former matrimonial home.

The respondent, Mr. Putros, opposed supplementary costs.

The court found that Ms. Hebo's offer to settle did not meet the strict requirements of Family Law Rule 18(14) for full indemnity but could be considered under Rule 18(16) and Rule 24.

The court determined that $8,000 was a reasonable and proportionate amount for supplementary costs, allocating $3,000 to support issues (enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office) and $5,000 to equalization (charged on the former matrimonial home).

The request for a charge on the matrimonial home for support costs was denied, as the Family Law Act does not provide for such relief for support orders, and the underlying reason was to secure a litigation funder who was not a party.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the applicant was awarded temporary spousal support.

The applicant sought $4,470.85 in costs, while the respondent sought $8,391.

The court found the applicant to be the more successful party in the underlying motion, as she obtained spousal support despite seeking a higher amount, and the respondent's counter-proposals were not adopted.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments of bad faith against the respondent.

Considering the reasonableness and proportionality of the parties' conduct and offers to settle, the court noted that both parties' offers were far from the ultimate award.

The applicant's costs were reduced to reflect the discrepancy between her initial request and the final outcome.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $3,500 in costs, all-inclusive.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs after a 10-day family law trial, claiming $203,059.19.

The respondent conceded $50,841.61.

The court awarded the applicant $103,000 in costs, finding the respondent's behavior unreasonable and in bad faith, particularly regarding non-payment of spousal support and presenting incredible evidence.

The costs were allocated between support issues ($40,000) and equalization ($63,000), with the latter secured as a charge on the matrimonial home.

The Applicant sought a temporary order for the children of the marriage to be placed in his care for 90 days, with no contact with the Respondent except as directed by a therapist, alleging parental alienation.

The Respondent opposed the motion.

The court considered whether the "material change in circumstances" test applied to a variation of a temporary, without prejudice order, ultimately accepting for the motion's purpose that the Applicant only needed to demonstrate the order was in the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Applicant had not provided sufficient clear evidence, particularly noting issues with the admissibility and weight of the counsellor's reports as expert evidence without proper voir dire and cross-examination.

The applicant wife sought temporary spousal support based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs).

Entitlement was conceded by the respondent husband, but quantum was disputed.

The court found the SSAGs inappropriate due to the unknown income of the high-earning respondent and the potential for a radically different lifestyle for the applicant.

The court imputed no income to the applicant temporarily due to mental health issues but considered her actual needs and pre-separation lifestyle.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $8,500 per month in temporary spousal support, an increase from the $5,000 voluntarily paid but significantly less than the SSAGs suggested.

This motion for directions concerned the procedural path for resolving competing claims against the estate of Michael Birnie.

Susan Larmer, as Estate Trustee and a dependant, sought directions on how to proceed with Janice Birnie's claims (spousal support, life insurance, retroactive CPI adjustments, dependant's relief) and her own and Noah Perron's dependant's relief claims.

The court provided a framework, including timelines for Janice's summary judgment motion, combining the civil action and family application, and confirming Susan's ability to continue as Estate Trustee despite her personal claims.

The husband sought costs of a motion and cross-motion that settled shortly after a case conference.

The wife had taken extreme and unyielding positions, including demanding supervised access and triple the voluntary financial support, which prompted a costly response from the husband.

The court found that the wife needed to understand the financial consequences of taking such positions to the courtroom steps.

The husband was awarded $20,000 in partial indemnity costs, payable in instalments.

This case addresses a dispute between separated parents over the choice of school for their two daughters.

The applicant father sought to keep the children in their current school, St. Elizabeth Seton, which they had attended since Junior Kindergarten.

The respondent mother wished to transfer them to St. Edmund, a school closer to her parents' home, citing a shorter commute and higher Fraser Institute rankings.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" principle, found no compelling reason to change schools.

It prioritized the children's established friendships, stable environment, and relationship with the father over the mother's preferences and the academic rankings.

The court also critiqued the reliance on Fraser Institute rankings without expert evidence and noted the diminished weight of the OCL report due to lack of cross-examination.

The father's position was upheld, and the mother was ordered to pay costs.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a final order requiring the respondent father to provide annual income disclosure and automatically adjust child support.

The father argued this was effectively a motion to change the final order and should be heard alongside his own motion to change based on material changes in circumstances.

The court held that seeking compliance with an automatic adjustment clause is a matter of enforcement under Rule 1(8), not a motion to change under Rule 15.

The court ordered that the mother's enforcement motion be heard before the father's motion to change, as delaying enforcement would undermine the integrity of the existing order.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order, seeking recalculated spousal support, child support, and section 7 expenses for 2015, 2016, and 2018.

The parties reached a partial consent agreement regarding ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The court determined the parties' incomes and calculated the arrears and overpayments.

The court found the father underpaid child support and section 7 expenses, but overpaid spousal support.

The mother was ordered to repay the spousal support overpayment in monthly installments.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 12-year marriage.

The applicant sought a constructive trust over the matrimonial home to capture its post-separation increase in value, equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

The court dismissed the constructive trust claim, finding a prior agreement provided a juristic reason for the respondent to retain the post-separation increase in value.

However, the court ordered the respondent to pay over $120,000 in equalization, significant arrears for child and spousal support, and ongoing spousal support, finding the respondent and his family members lacked credibility regarding alleged debts and financial contributions.

The applicant wife and respondent husband have been litigating their family law matter for over 12 years.

The applicant brought a motion seeking extensive disclosure from the husband and his business partner, $150,000 in interim disbursements under Rule 24(12), and payment of past support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent husband brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure, termination of child support for their 24-year-old daughter, and a variation of a 2008 temporary spousal support order to impute income to the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion in its entirety, finding she failed to meet the test for interim disbursements and that the disclosure requests were either already satisfied or unsupported by evidence.

The court granted the husband's request to terminate child support as the child was no longer living with either parent and was employed.

The court also ordered the applicant to provide disclosure.

However, the court declined to vary the temporary spousal support order on the eve of trial, directing the parties to proceed to trial in 2018.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The main issues at trial were parenting arrangements, decision-making authority, and equalization of net family property.

The court found that the respondent mother had engaged in marginalizing conduct and attempted to alienate the children from the applicant father.

The court ordered a shared parenting week-about schedule and granted final decision-making authority to the father, subject to a detailed communication protocol.

On equalization, the court found that funds advanced by the mother's parents were a loan, and waived the father's equalization payment due to the mother's non-disclosure and unilateral disposal of household contents.

The mother was ordered to reimburse the father for post-separation adjustments.

The father sought costs following a bifurcated parenting trial where the court largely adopted the recommendations of a joint custody and access assessment.

The mother had initially sought sole custody but changed her position to shared custody during the trial.

The court found the mother's approach unreasonable and noted her counsel contributed to unnecessarily extending the trial.

The father was awarded $50,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements, plus the full cost of the expert's court attendance.

The appellant appealed an arbitration award determining retroactive and prospective child support and costs following a dispute arising from a separation agreement.

The arbitrator had found that the payor parent failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and imputed substantial income based on corporate earnings, discretionary expenses, and adverse inferences under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The arbitrator ordered retroactive child support back to 2009 and prospective support based on table amounts, together with significant arbitration costs.

The court held that the arbitrator committed no reviewable error in interpreting the separation agreement, imputing income, attributing corporate pre‑tax income, or awarding retroactive support, and deferred to the arbitrator’s factual and credibility findings.

However, the court found the arbitrator’s reasoning on costs insufficient and reduced the costs award.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking retroactive and ongoing child support and s. 7 expenses following separation.

The respondent argued that the parenting arrangement met the 40 percent threshold for shared custody under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and that support should be set-off.

The court held there was no genuine issue regarding retroactive support prior to June 5, 2015 and fixed arrears based on the respondent’s income, rejecting attempts to offset household expenses or costs against support obligations.

However, the court found that whether the 40 percent threshold would apply going forward and whether claimed s. 7 expenses were reasonable required a trial.

The balance of the summary judgment motions was dismissed.

A motion to change child support provisions resulted in a settlement at the first case conference where the father agreed to pay the mother $224 per month in child support and hockey expenses were designated as a section 7 expense.

Both parties sought costs on a full-recovery basis.

The court found that while the mother's conduct in bypassing the contractual mediation/arbitration process was unreasonable, the father's focus on procedural issues also unnecessarily increased costs.

Given the divided success, settlement between parties, and the mother's limited financial resources following job loss, the court awarded no costs to either party.

On an interim family law motion, the responding spouse sought partition and sale of a non‑matrimonial rental property, interim disbursements to retain an income valuation expert, imputation of income to the other spouse, and interim child and spousal support.

The court declined to order partition and sale on an interim motion, finding the issue better determined at trial given disputed equity and mortgage claims involving family members.

The court exercised its discretion under the Family Law Rules to order partial interim disbursements to fund an income analysis.

Applying s. 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines, the court imputed limited income for certain employment benefits but rejected broader lifestyle‑based imputations tied to discretionary gifts from family or a family‑owned business.

Interim child support was ordered based on the adjusted income, with retroactive support, while determination of interim spousal support was deferred pending updated calculations.

The parties settled their matrimonial litigation in 2008 with a consent order providing for $3,000 monthly spousal support with no termination date.

In 2010, the respondent sought to terminate support and obtain child support, citing a decrease in his income and the appellant's unexplained accumulation of wealth.

The trial judge found a material change in circumstances, terminated spousal support, and ordered the appellant to pay child support.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the finding of a material change but found the trial judge erred by failing to consider the circumstances at the time of the original consent order, effectively rescinding rather than varying it.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.