Debra Louise McNairn

The applicant was completely successful on a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home and boat.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $38,597, arguing the respondent's allegations of financial impropriety were unreasonable and unnecessarily complicated the proceedings.

The court agreed, finding the respondent's conduct egregious and noting the applicant had made multiple reasonable settlement offers.

The court awarded the applicant $38,500 in costs, to be paid from the respondent's share of the net sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking an interim order for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home and a boat.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing that a sale would prejudice his claim for unequal division based on alleged misappropriation of corporate funds by the applicant and incomplete financial disclosure.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case for unequal division, noting the high threshold for such claims and the applicant's thorough financial disclosure.

The court also highlighted the respondent's history of financial irresponsibility.

The motion for sale was granted, as the court determined it was justified to prevent further delay and unnecessary legal costs.

In a family law costs ruling following earlier determinations that the parties had settled outstanding issues and that child support should be temporarily varied, the successful party sought full indemnity costs after an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court applied Rules 24 and 18 of the Family Law Rules, found the responding party acted unreasonably, and held he should have accepted the offer.

While the offer presumptively engaged full recovery consequences, the court moderated the result in light of the responding party's financial circumstances and partial later success on temporary child support relief.

Costs were awarded in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, enforceable as a support order.

The applicant wife brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the respondent husband regarding their family law dispute.

Following a settlement meeting, counsel exchanged emails confirming an agreement on all issues, subject only to a formal appraisal of the matrimonial home.

After the appraisal resulted in a lower equalization payment to the husband than he anticipated, and following his subsequent loss of employment, he refused to sign the revised Minutes of Settlement.

The court found that a binding settlement had been reached and that the husband's job loss did not vitiate the agreement, granting the motion to enforce the settlement.

The appellant appealed a trial decision ordering him to pay $2,000 per month in spousal support and to secure the payments with life insurance.

The parties' separation agreement had set spousal support at $1.00 per month but allowed for variation in the event of a material change in circumstances.

The trial judge found that the cessation of child support constituted a material change.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding, concluding that the agreement implicitly gave priority to child support and that the cessation of child support was a material change warranting variation.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to set aside the requirement for life insurance, finding no evidence that the appellant had a history of failing to meet support obligations.