Amarnath Misir

Following earlier family law reasons, the court addressed outstanding issues relating to child support and costs.

The moving party sought child support for an adult child, arguing the child remained a “child of the marriage” under the Divorce Act.

The court found the evidence did not establish that the adult child met the statutory definition and also found the responding party lacked the means to pay support.

On costs, success was divided: the responding party succeeded on spousal support but failed on the limitation issue relating to an equalization claim, while the moving party’s claim for child support failed.

In the circumstances, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The applicant husband sought a divorce, and the respondent wife claimed an equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The court found that the wife's equalization claim was brought well beyond the six-year limitation period and declined to extend the time limit, finding she had not acted in good faith given her prior consultations with counsel.

However, the court awarded the wife a lump sum spousal support payment of $25,000 to reimburse her for home repairs, plus periodic spousal support of $850 per month for three years based on her need and the husband's ability to pay.