Catherine Hibberd

Following a motion to change spousal support where success was divided, the applicant sought costs on the basis of beating her December 2021 offer to settle.

The respondent argued for a no-costs order.

The court found the applicant was entitled to costs under Rule 18(14) but reduced the amount claimed for the period after the offer by 50% to reflect proportionality and the respondent's genuine settlement efforts.

The applicant was awarded total costs of $137,151.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change seeking to step down and terminate spousal support, arguing material changes in circumstances including increased parenting time, his significantly increased income, and the responding party's full-time employment.

The court found that material changes had occurred but held that the responding party's strong compensatory claim had not yet been satisfied due to her ongoing disproportionate share of parenting responsibilities and career sacrifices.

The court varied the prior consent order by continuing spousal support at the current indexed amount of $3,500 per month until the older children graduate high school, after which it will step down to $1,500 per month until the youngest child graduates.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The court found the applicant was largely successful and that her offers to settle were as or more favourable than the final order on most issues.

The court also found the respondent engaged in bad faith by unilaterally withdrawing funds from a joint account and unnecessarily seizing a vehicle from the parties' daughter.

The court awarded the applicant $25,000 in costs, with $15,000 payable forthwith and $10,000 to be set off against any future equalization payment owed by the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2003 consent judgment, seeking an increase in spousal support due to her inability to work from medical issues and the respondent's increased income.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the respondent's increased income and the applicant's lack of income.

However, the court imputed an income of $25,000 to the applicant, finding insufficient expert evidence to prove she was medically unable to work as a licensed paralegal.

The court also found insufficient evidence that the parties' 30-year-old son remained a dependent of the respondent.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court increased spousal support to $1,950 per month and ordered the respondent to continue providing health coverage, but dismissed the applicant's other claims.