A. Tint

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, life insurance as security, and disclosure.

The respondent, a self-employed IT consultant operating through a personal services corporation, argued his income was lower due to retained earnings and reduced hours from a medical condition.

The court imputed income to the respondent, finding no valid business reason to retain pre-tax corporate earnings and noting he was underemployed compared to his medical restrictions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $2,250 per month and maintain $700,000 in life insurance designating the applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary.

Following a motion to change in a family law matter, the court determined costs.

Although the responding party had been dilatory in pursuing the motion and providing financial disclosure, he was largely successful on the motion to change and therefore presumptively entitled to costs under rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The opposing party argued that circumstances justified rebutting the presumption and sought costs despite the outcome.

The court found no basis to depart from the ordinary rule of success, particularly given that the successful party had made a more generous offer to settle than the final judgment.

Modest partial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful party.