Gary Kevin Blaney

The court issued a costs endorsement following a two-day trial in a family law matter.

The Respondent Husband was found to be the more successful party on key issues including the duration and retroactivity of spousal support and the quantum of child support arrears, despite the Applicant Wife's success on the quantum of spousal support and a life insurance designation requirement.

Neither party's settlement offers triggered Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

Considering the divided success and the Husband's slightly more favorable outcome, the court ordered the Wife to pay the Husband $2,500 in costs.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the Applicant's motion to restrain the Respondent from depleting assets.

The Respondent, as the successful party, sought costs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the Respondent, finding that the Respondent's offer to settle met the criteria for full recovery under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court also considered the Applicant's unreasonable behaviour in filing voluminous and largely irrelevant materials, which necessitated the Respondent's response.

The respondent brought a motion seeking to be declared a "special party" under Rule 2 of the Family Law Rules and to have a litigation guardian appointed due to alleged mental incapacity preventing her participation in trial.

The applicant opposed, arguing the respondent had not met the onus of demonstrating incapacity and that such an appointment would deprive him of a fair trial.

The court found that while the medical evidence indicated significant stress and mental health issues, it did not conclusively establish that the respondent was unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of her decisions or instruct counsel.

The motion was dismissed, but adjourned to allow the respondent to submit further evidence regarding her capacity.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a consent order regarding their son's schooling and custody schedule.

The respondent mother sought sole custody and a variation of the existing order.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify varying the original joint custody and phased-in equal parenting time plan.

However, the court decided on the child's school, enrolling him in the mother's proposed school, and the father agreed to pay child support.

This case involved a trial of specified issues to determine the enforceability of a settlement agreement between separated spouses.

The applicant sought to enforce the agreement, while the respondent sought to set it aside under section 56(4)(b) of the Family Law Act, alleging she did not understand its nature or consequences and was subjected to undue influence by her counsel.

The court found the respondent to be an intelligent and engaged litigant who understood the finality and consequences of the agreement.

Despite some pressure during negotiations, her will was not overborne, and the agreement was not fundamentally unfair.

The court dismissed the respondent's request to set aside the settlement, finding it valid and enforceable.

On a motion for temporary child support under the Divorce Act and the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court considered whether income should be imputed to an unemployed parent and at what level.

The payor parent had been unemployed for several years following the loss of a high-paying job but asserted ongoing efforts to secure comparable employment.

The court held that a parent with child support obligations must earn what they are capable of earning and may be imputed income on an interim basis where prolonged unemployment persists.

Relying on prior earning history and limited evidence of current earning capacity, the court imputed income of $40,000 annually and ordered temporary guideline child support and proportional section 7 expenses.

Issues of retroactive support, retroactive special expenses, and life insurance were deferred to trial.