David James Thrasher

Following a family law trial in which the applicant’s claim for spousal support was dismissed, the successful party sought costs.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, which creates a presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and requires consideration of settlement offers and party conduct.

The respondent had made an offer to settle well in advance of trial that resulted in an outcome as favourable or more favourable than the trial result.

The court held that this entitled the successful party to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs were fixed after reviewing the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates, time spent, and disbursements.

In a divorce proceeding, the applicant sought spousal support after voluntarily leaving two insurance brokerage jobs and later relying on social assistance.

The court assessed entitlement under s.15.2 of the Divorce Act and examined evidence regarding employability, credibility, financial circumstances, and contributions during the marriage.

The court found the applicant had voluntarily left her employment without medical justification and had made no meaningful efforts to obtain further work.

The court also imputed income based on her prior earnings and considered the respondent’s continued servicing of substantial joint debts after the applicant’s bankruptcy.

The court concluded the respondent’s financial obligations and payments already exceeded any potential spousal support entitlement and dismissed the claim.

Following a motion concerning the continuation of spousal support, the court determined the appropriate costs payable by the respondent to the partially successful moving party.

The moving party sought costs on a full indemnity basis exceeding $25,000, while the responding party argued the bill of costs was excessive and should be assessed on a partial indemnity basis.

The court held that there were no circumstances justifying substantial or full indemnity costs and that the time claimed for cross-examination was excessive.

Applying the principle that costs should be reasonable and reflect the reasonable expectations of the losing party, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

A lump sum costs award was ordered.