Helen M. McCullough

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.

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.