A.M.F.D. v. S.T.D.

A.M.F.D. v. S.T.D.

The claimant was substantially successful overall because she prevailed on the most important issues to the parties (the respondent's relocation application and entitlement to retroactive child and spousal support); the respondent failed to discharge the onus to justify departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event; accordingly the claimant is entitled to costs and the court will not make the requested reduction; specific shared expenses (s.211 report and expert attendance, and certain travel costs) are to be shared proportionate to income as previously determined.

Citation
2020 BCSC 972
Parties
Claimant: A.M.F.D.; Respondent: S.T.D.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Law Relocation, Custody, Support and Property Division / Costs Hearing (reasons for Judgment on Costs)
Outcome
Claimant found to be substantially successful and entitled to costs; court declines to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event; specific expert/report and travel expenses to be shared proportionate to incomes.
Legal Topics
Relocation/mobility, Shared Parenting, Occupational Rent, Excluded Property, Retroactive Support, Expert Report Costs, Award of Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody and Access Spousal Support Child Support Property Division Civil Procedure Costs Relocation/mobility Shared Parenting +5 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.M.F.D.

Claimant

S.T.D.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Relocation, Custody, Support and Property Division / Costs Hearing (reasons for Judgment on Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether either party achieved substantial success at trial
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event
  3. 3 Allocation of costs of the s.211 report and expert attendance

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was substantially successful overall because she prevailed on the most important issues to the parties (the respondent's relocation application and entitlement to retroactive child and spousal support); the respondent failed to discharge the onus to justify departing from the usual rule that costs follow the event; accordingly the claimant is entitled to costs and the court will not make the requested reduction; specific shared expenses (s.211 report and expert attendance, and certain travel costs) are to be shared proportionate to income as previously determined.

Court Disposition

Claimant found to be substantially successful and entitled to costs; court declines to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event; specific expert/report and travel expenses to be shared proportionate to incomes.

Orders

  • Claimant awarded costs of the action (costs follow the event)
  • Court declines respondent's request to otherwise order that each party bear their own costs