MRP v K-AP

The decision addressed the Costs following applications for mobility, parenting, access costs and child support which were heard on June 25, 2025. Prior to the Hearing, the Respondent formally conceded the mobility issues. The Applicant sought to impute the Respondent’s income at $70,000; however, Justice Eamon rejected this and made an Interim Order imputing income of $31,200 to the Respondent, being minimum wage pending further disclosure and an expected inheritance.

“The Applicant argued that she was largely successful in the litigation and should therefore receive costs. She submitted that the Court should take into account the Respondent’s litigation misconduct, including his failure to disclose financial information, his rejection of two settlement offers, and his unnecessary prolonging of the proceedings by not conceding the mobility issue until seven days before the Hearing.

The Applicant sought indemnification for 80% or alternatively 50% of her solicitor-client accounts and that the Respondent should be ordered to bear the accounts of the Children’s Counsel. While the Respondent argued that each side should bear their own costs because of the mixed success in the outcome of the Hearing, and alternatively that he should be awarded Schedule C, Column 2 costs for his efforts to resolve the issues without a hearing, including by making a reasonable proposal in his informal pre-hearing settlement offer.

Justice Eamon acknowledged that pursuant to Rule 10.29, a successful party to an application is entitled to a costs award and that Rule 10.31 provides the Court with wide discretion and flexibility in making a costs award. Eamon J. also referred to Rule 10.33 for the well-established considerations in making or quantifying a costs award. In applying these costs principles, the Court determined that the Applicant was substantially successful because she prevailed on the Mobility Application and should therefore receive costs of that Application. However, success on other issues, including parenting time and decision-making authority, was divided, and the Applicant was not substantially successful in her effort to impute income to the Respondent. Further, Justice Eamon noted that final orders for child support or significant imputation of income were not appropriate and should have awaited further disclosure.

The Court determined that the Respondent’s alleged lack of financial disclosure or the late concession of the mobility issue did not constitute litigation misconduct because the evidence did not establish that the Respondent’s actions unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings. Further, the Applicant also bore responsibility for proceeding to an expensive oral hearing when she was aware of the evidentiary gaps and did not seek any Court remedies. Justice Eamon found that Rule 4.29 for double costs consequences of a formal offer did not apply as the Applicant did not obtain an order that was more favourable than her settlement offers and because the oral hearing was deemed not necessary. There was no disproportionate conduct in the continuation of the litigation over minor parenting differences that would have warranted an adverse costs consequence against the Respondent alone. Both parties contributed to the litigation’s continuation.

The Court awarded the Applicant Schedule C costs of $6,725 plus GST for steps leading to the Mobility Application. As success was divided for the oral Hearing, Eamon J. directed that each side should bear their own costs for the oral Hearing. Consequently, the Court directed the Respondent to bear 90% of the accounts of the Child’s Counsel and the Applicant 10% because the Applicant was successful on the mobility issue, but both were directed to bear their own costs of the oral Hearing. The Applicant was also awarded costs for this Costs Application.