Having heard six Applications between the parties related to spousal support and parenting arrangements, the Court was then asked to settle Costs to be apportioned between the parties. The father was clearly the successful party in five of the six Applications, and therefore was presumptively entitled to Costs pursuant to Rules 10.29(1) and 10.33(1)(a). Three of these Applications had been complicated by the mother’s falsification of drug tests, and as a consequence, the Court ordered the father’s Costs enhanced 1.5 times pursuant to Rule 10.33(2)(g).

In the course of rendering its Decision, the Court learned that the father had neglected to make  Court-ordered spousal support payments to the mother, intending to offset that amount against an award of Costs. Based on the father’s unilateral decision to withhold payment in contravention of Court Order, the father’s Costs award was reduced by $2,000.00.