Mr. Martel

The parties separated after a 7.5-year cohabitation during which the applicant supported the respondent's military career, resulting in economic disadvantage.

The court granted a divorce and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $40,254.55.

The court found the applicant entitled to compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, including the respondent's non-taxable military allowances in his income.

Spousal support was ordered at $1,393 per month, terminating in May 2022 after a total duration of 69 months.

The applicant's requests to remain on the respondent's health and life insurance plans long-term were dismissed.

Following a trial to recalculate an equalization payment based on the applicant's pension, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the trial was entirely unnecessary, as the respondent had access to the applicant's expert report well in advance and the respondent's own expert reached essentially the same conclusion.

Furthermore, the applicant had made multiple offers to settle that were as favourable or more favourable than the final trial decision, which the respondent failed to accept.

The court exercised its discretion to award the applicant costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $30,392.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2009 final order regarding equalization, alleging a mistake in the valuation of her pension.

The applicant claimed her actuary was provided incorrect information regarding her pension buyback status, resulting in an overvaluation of her pension and a lower equalization payment from the respondent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the pension administrator provided the incorrect information to the actuary, and concluding that the mistake was not mutual and did not negate the common intention of the parties at the time of the settlement.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, and an advance on an equalization payment from the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed an income of $30,000 to the mother and ordered the father to pay net child support of $1,041 per month and spousal support of $1,172 per month.

The court declined to order an advance on the equalization payment beyond the amounts consented to by the father, as the father's pension had not yet been valued and funds needed to remain in trust to secure potential cost awards at trial.

The parties separated after a four-year marriage.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6)(e) of the Family Law Act, arguing that equal division would be unconscionable because he brought the fully-owned matrimonial home into the short marriage.

The court valued several disputed assets, including a bush lot and a contingent interest in property.

The court concluded that full equalization would be unconscionable given the short marriage and the disparity in pre-marriage assets, ordering the applicant to pay 80% of the calculated equalization amount.