Catherine Mary Hibberd

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, both retroactive and ongoing, for herself and the three children of the marriage.

The court determined the respondent husband's income for support purposes to be $400,000, higher than his claimed income.

The court ordered temporary child support for two children (Maggie and William) and temporary spousal support, with adjustments for when the children attend university away from home.

The wife's claim for retroactive support was adjourned to trial.

The court declined to impute income to the wife at this stage, recognizing her efforts towards self-sufficiency.

Following the breakdown of a 14‑year common law relationship with two children, the applicant sought determinations regarding retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, imputation of income to the respondent, allocation of section 7 expenses, accounting of joint financial dealings, and disposition of the jointly owned home.

The court found the respondent to be an unreliable witness and imputed income of $130,000 pursuant to s. 19 of the Child Support Guidelines.

Spousal support was ordered on both compensatory and non‑compensatory bases, reflecting the applicant’s long absence from the workforce to raise children and support the respondent’s career.

Retroactive support was recalculated to the date of separation, resulting in arrears after credits and adjustments.

Claims by the respondent for occupation rent, resulting trust over joint assets, and reimbursement for mortgage payments from inherited funds were dismissed, while the applicant received credits for certain expenses and property taken by the respondent.

Following a family law trial concerning variation of spousal support, the court determined costs under Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Both parties claimed substantial success, but the court found that success at trial was divided.

The court reviewed the parties’ offers to settle, litigation conduct, complexity of the issues, counsel rates, time spent, and disbursements.

Although neither party met the criteria for full recovery of costs under Rule 18(14), the respondent had made reasonable offers and incurred additional expense due to the applicant’s late filings and failure to comply with an order regarding expert evidence.

Considering these factors, the court ordered the applicant to pay nominal costs to the respondent.