D. Clark

Following a four‑day family law trial addressing property division and spousal support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Although the applicant obtained significant retroactive support and equalization relief, success at trial was mixed, with several issues resolved in the respondent’s favour, including income findings and an inheritance exclusion claim.

The court considered the parties’ settlement offers under rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules and the general costs factors under rule 24.

Substantial indemnity costs were found inappropriate due to mixed success and reasonable litigation conduct by both parties.

The court reduced the applicant’s claimed partial indemnity costs and ordered the respondent to pay a fixed amount.

Following a 14-year marriage, the parties proceeded to trial to resolve issues of child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court determined the respondent's income, accounting for bonuses and a voluntary job change, and imputed $20,000 in income to the applicant, recognizing her long absence from the workforce to care for the children.

The court awarded retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as indefinite spousal support in the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to address compensatory and non-compensatory needs.

The applicant's claim to exclude a $10,000 inheritance from her net family property was dismissed, as the court found the funds were used for family landscaping, resulting in an equalization payment of $34,659 to the applicant.

Five work assignment complaints were brought before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the handling and installation of enclosures for finned tube convectors.

The parties agreed to have the Board first determine the applicability and effect of the 1956 Interim National Agreement between the two unions.

The Board found that while the agreement applied to the work in dispute, it was not dispositive of the complaints because the Sheet Metal Workers had only recently sought to rely on it.

The Board concluded that other criteria, such as area and employer past practice, must also be considered, and directed a further hearing to determine whether the complaints should proceed en bloc or individually.