Glen R. Carey

The moving party sought to terminate his spousal support obligation after losing his employment.

The responding party opposed, arguing he should use his capital to continue payments.

The court found the loss of employment constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court suspended the spousal support obligation, concluding it was unfair to require the moving party to deplete his capital to fund support when both parties had comparable financial positions and capital assets.

Following a family law trial involving spousal support, retroactive support, and property equalization, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The successful party sought costs exceeding $99,000 relying on settlement offers and Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court held that the requirements of Rule 18(14) were not met because earlier offers had been withdrawn and the final offer was not clearly more favourable than the judgment regarding property.

However, the offers remained relevant under Rule 18(16) and the court also considered the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct, disclosure delays, and the complexity of income and valuation issues.

Balancing these factors, the court awarded $85,000 in costs plus disbursements and HST.