Lilly v. Lilly, 2017 NSSC 361

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Lilly v. Lilly , 2017 NSSC 361 Date: 2017-04-04 Docket: 1201-067634 SFH-D-089722 Registry: Halifax Between: Tracy Lilly Petitioner v. Joseph Lilly Respondent LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Jollimore

Summary: Success at divorce trial mixed: father more successful on access and mother more successful on child support. Costs claim by mother dismissed where award would undermine father’s ability to pay child support and to afford travel for access with children. Key words: Family, Costs Legislation: Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules, Rules 77.03(3) THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOESN’T FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET . SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Lilly v. Lilly , 2017 NSSC 361 ENDORSEMENT Tracy Lilly v.

Joseph Lilly 2014; 1201-067634 SFH-D-089722 April 4, 2017 • Cheryl C. Arnold for Tracy Playford • Joseph Lilly Request for costs of $6,500.00 following a one day hearing, where the issues were parenting time, retroactive and prospective child support. Decision:

Joseph Lilly shall pay no costs to Tracy Playford. Reasons: 1 . At issue in the parties’ divorce were: the time Mr. Lilly would spend with the couple’s daughters; how major decisions for the girls would be made; and the amount of child support Mr. Lilly should pay, retroactively and prospectively. 2 . Mr. Lilly’s access was defined and Ms. Playford was given the authority to make final decisions only if the parents could not reach an agreement or Mr. Lilly was not available to take

part in decision-making. Income was imputed to Mr. Lilly, who was ordered to pay prospective child support of $313.00 per month under

section 3 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines . He was not ordered to make a contribution to special or extraordinary expenses. Arrears were fixed at $4,400.00 and a moratorium was placed on their collection. 3 . The hearing required one day. An oral decision was delivered on November 1, 2016. 4 . I have received submissions on costs from Ms. Playford and Mr. Lilly. 5 . The most significant issues at the hearing were the children’s time with their father and child support (prospective and retroactive). 6 . Between the parties, Mr.

Lilly was more successful in terms of the time the children would spend with him and Ms. Playford was more successful on the child support issues. 7 . Ms. Playford does not explain how she calculated her claim for costs of $6,500.00. I have no information about the legal fees she incurred. 8 . Civil Procedure Rule 77.03(3) provides that “Costs of a proceeding follow the result”. Costs are in my discretion. A decision not to award costs must be principled. 9 . Costs may be declined where to order them would prejudice the children’s best interests. 10 . I have ordered Mr.

Lilly to pay support for his children and that he have access with them. Both of these orders reflect the children’s best interests and have a cost for Mr. Lilly. His ability to meet the children’s best interests through his payment of support or spending time with them would be jeopardized by an award of costs. I decline to order Mr. Lilly to pay costs to Ms. Playford. _____________________________ Elizabeth Jollimore, J.S.C.(F.D.)