David Wilfred Cahill

This is a costs endorsement following a six-day family law trial.

The court considered the parties' written submissions, the divided success on various issues (net family property, chattel valuation, spousal support income, retroactive spousal support, spousal support amount/duration), and the reasonableness of settlement offers.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $69,739.08.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success and alleged lack of proper billing advice from her former counsel.

The court deducted costs related to previous motions where costs were already awarded or denied, and further discounted the applicant's claim by 25% for time spent on an issue where the respondent was successful (health and ability to work).

The court found the respondent's settlement position "extreme" and unreasonable, making settlement impossible.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her request for broad relief and the granting of child support by the application judge.

The appellant argued that the application judge lacked jurisdiction and erred in assessing the parties' requests.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the jurisdiction argument and declining to find error in the application judge's assessment of the merits.

Costs were fixed at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and relevant taxes.