Helen Mary McCullough

This decision addresses the costs of a decade-long family law proceeding.

The Respondent, M.M., sought full recovery of costs, alleging the Applicant, K.K., acted in bad faith.

The court found K.K. engaged in egregious bad faith conduct, including concealing financial information, presenting fabricated evidence, manipulating third parties, and repeatedly breaching court orders to inflict emotional, psychological, and financial harm on M.M. and alienate the children.

Consequently, the court awarded M.M. full recovery of trial-related costs and certain pre-trial costs, totaling $211,441, and stayed the enforcement of previous costs orders against M.M. due to K.K.'s oppressive conduct.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking disclosure from the respondent husband regarding their landscaping business and for support.

The parties had a temporary consent order for winding up the business and selling the matrimonial home.

The wife alleged the husband failed to comply with disclosure obligations and continued to operate a business in his own name, potentially diverting cash income.

The court found the husband failed to provide adequate disclosure and ordered specific disclosure with a daily penalty for non-compliance.

The court also ordered the husband to pay interim spousal support and contribute to matrimonial home expenses, noting the absence of updated financial statements.

The applicant wife brought a motion for leave to bring an urgent motion to enforce a prior court order regarding support, expenses, disclosure, and the sale of the matrimonial home, alleging the respondent husband had depleted business funds.

The respondent argued against the urgency of the request.

The court found that the unexplained depletion of business account funds by the husband created a dire financial circumstance, satisfying the urgency test under the Chief Justice's Notice regarding COVID-19 court operations.

Leave was granted, and specific directions were provided for the urgent motion, with costs awarded to the applicant.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought competing motions regarding supervised access, international travel with the children, and an advance on equalization.

Most issues were resolved on consent immediately prior to the hearing, while the court denied the father's request to travel to India and the mother's request for an equalization advance.

Both parties subsequently sought costs.

The court declined to award costs to either party, finding divided success and noting that the late resolution of issues did not justify a costs award.

Following the breakdown of a long-term common law relationship involving two children, the applicant sought child support, spousal support, and compensation for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture.

The respondent argued the parties had separated in 1997 pursuant to a separation agreement, while the applicant asserted the relationship continued until 2011.

The court found the parties remained in a common law relationship until June 21, 2011, and determined that the applicant had established unjust enrichment arising from her domestic and caregiving contributions that enabled the respondent’s financial advancement.

Applying the joint family venture framework from Kerr v. Baranow, the court concluded the respondent retained a disproportionate share of assets accumulated during the relationship.

The applicant was awarded a monetary remedy of $125,000 and ongoing spousal support calculated under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The applicant wife brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the respondent husband regarding their family law dispute.

Following a settlement meeting, counsel exchanged emails confirming an agreement on all issues, subject only to a formal appraisal of the matrimonial home.

After the appraisal resulted in a lower equalization payment to the husband than he anticipated, and following his subsequent loss of employment, he refused to sign the revised Minutes of Settlement.

The court found that a binding settlement had been reached and that the husband's job loss did not vitiate the agreement, granting the motion to enforce the settlement.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order for child and spousal support, arguing the judge erred in allowing a late amendment to claim spousal support, imputing too little income to the respondent, and creating undue hardship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The trial judge properly exercised discretion in allowing the amendment, had an evidentiary basis for the imputed income given the respondent's mental health issues, and the undue hardship argument was not raised at trial and could be addressed at an upcoming review.

Following a family law trial involving issues of custody, access, and support, the court determined the appropriate costs award under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party had been successful on the issue of care and control of the children, while the responding party had been successful on spousal support.

The court considered the parties’ relative success, the reasonableness of their conduct, and the effect of settlement offers.

Finding the moving party more successful overall, the court ordered costs in the amount of $12,500 plus HST, subject to set-off against a retroactive support award.

The court also issued supplementary reasons correcting an omission in the earlier judgment and confirming the parenting arrangement of alternating weekly residence under joint custody.