A.J. v. K.M.

A.J. v. K.M.

The father was largely the more successful party, particularly on mobility and imputation issues; the mother’s conduct (removal of the child, failure to attend the emergency hearing and parallel Ontario proceedings) contributed to delay. Applying the $20,000 per trial day rule for three days produced an "amount involved" of $60,000; Tariff A produced a base of $7,250 plus $2,000 per day for a total of $13,250. Considering the Ontario cost award of $3,000 against the mother and the mother's modest means, the court reduced the tariff-derived figure and awarded the father $6,000 in party-and-party costs payable by the mother in monthly installments of $250 commencing September 1, 2017,...

Citation
2017 NSFC 20
Parties
Applicant: A.J.; Respondent: K.M.
Court
Nova Scotia Family Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Court Mobility and Related Relief / Costs Decision Following Final Hearing
Outcome
Costs awarded to the respondent (father). Applicant (mother) ordered to pay party-and-party costs of CAD 6,000 to respondent, payable in monthly installments of CAD 250 commencing September 1, 2017; remaining unpaid balance becomes immediately due and enforceable through the Maintenance Enforcement Program if...
Legal Topics
Mobility/relocation, Custody, Parenting Time, Imputation of Income, Retroactive Support, Legal Costs, Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Child Support Spousal Support Costs Mobility/relocation Custody Parenting Time +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.J.

Applicant

K.M.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Court Mobility and Related Relief / Costs Decision Following Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded and the appropriate quantum
  2. 2 Whether the mother was entitled to permanently relocate the child to Ontario (mobility)
  3. 3 Custody and parenting arrangements including primary care and residence

Ratio Decidendi

The father was largely the more successful party, particularly on mobility and imputation issues; the mother’s conduct (removal of the child, failure to attend the emergency hearing and parallel Ontario proceedings) contributed to delay. Applying the $20,000 per trial day rule for three days produced an "amount involved" of $60,000; Tariff A produced a base of $7,250 plus $2,000 per day for a total of $13,250. Considering the Ontario cost award of $3,000 against the mother and the mother's modest means, the court reduced the tariff-derived figure and awarded the father $6,000 in party-and-party costs payable by the mother in monthly installments of $250 commencing September 1, 2017,...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the respondent (father). Applicant (mother) ordered to pay party-and-party costs of CAD 6,000 to respondent, payable in monthly installments of CAD 250 commencing September 1, 2017; remaining unpaid balance becomes immediately due and enforceable through the Maintenance Enforcement Program if...

Orders

  • Applicant (mother) to pay respondent (father) CAD 6,000 in party-and-party costs
  • Payments of CAD 250 due on the first of each month commencing September 1, 2017 until the award is satisfied