Mr. Pittman

The parties separated after a 33-year relationship during which they had three children.

The applicant sought spousal support, child support, damages for unjust enrichment, and a restraining order.

The court found the respondent lacked credibility and imputed his income at $100,000 per year due to non-disclosure and voluntary underemployment.

The court awarded the applicant a $330,000 lump sum for indefinite spousal support, finding it adequately compensated her for her contributions to the joint family venture, thereby dismissing the separate unjust enrichment claim.

A restraining order was also granted against the respondent.

This was a family law costs decision following a trial involving income determination, child support, spousal support, equalization, and a claim under a Mahr.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, found divided success but concluded the respondent was the more successful party when the offers to settle, trial positions, and ultimate result were considered.

Allegations of bad faith and unreasonable conduct were rejected.

Costs were fixed at $30,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, and $160,000 held in the applicant's counsel's trust account was ordered paid to the respondent forthwith against the sums owing under the trial judgment.