G. Wells

Following the breakdown of a long marriage in which the parties jointly operated a highly successful real estate partnership, the applicant sought retroactive and ongoing spousal support.

The respondent unilaterally terminated the partnership, retained all commission income earned in 2011, and diverted partnership records and client lists, significantly impairing the applicant’s ability to continue in the business.

Although the applicant later chose to pursue a less profitable clothing business, the court held she was not entitled to ongoing spousal support because she voluntarily left a lucrative career in which she had demonstrated strong earning capacity.

However, the court found that transitional support was warranted due to the respondent’s unilateral termination of the partnership and the immediate economic disadvantage suffered by the applicant.

Lump‑sum transitional spousal support of $200,000 was ordered, along with ancillary orders relating to corporate asset distribution and trust funds for potential tax liabilities.

Following an extensive family law trial involving property division, business ownership, support, and tort claims between former spouses, the court considered competing claims for costs.

The respondent argued he was substantially successful and relied on a prior offer to settle, while the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs alleging misconduct, fraud, and disclosure failures during litigation.

The court found the respondent was largely successful on major issues but had behaved unreasonably during the proceedings, contributing to mistrust and prolonged litigation.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court held that the respondent should be deprived of costs but that the conduct did not amount to bad faith warranting an award of costs against him.

Given the conduct of both parties and the overall circumstances, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.