G.E. Oldfield

Following a trial on child and spousal support, the respondent sought to re-argue the applicant's entitlement to spousal support.

The court dismissed this as an abuse of process, finding no evidentiary basis to infer post-separation income increases.

On the issue of costs, the court found that the respondent conducted the eight-year litigation in bad faith by failing to disclose relevant documents, stonewalling the income valuation process, and habitually breaching court orders.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $193,000 on a full recovery basis under Family Law Rule 24(8).

The applicant and respondent separated in 2012.

The central issue at trial was determining the respondent's income for child and spousal support purposes from 2017 onwards, given his self-employment as a farmer.

The court accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the respondent's income should be adjusted to reflect actual depreciation of farm equipment rather than the Capital Cost Allowance permitted for tax purposes.

The court also imputed income for personal benefits derived from the farming operation, including rent-free housing, vehicle use, and farm produce.

The court ordered support to be calculated based on these adjusted income figures, averaging the income for future years due to the fluctuating nature of farm income.