James A. Ironside

The parties brought multiple motions concerning child support for two adult children, spousal support, and prejudgment interest on an equalization payment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support arrears for Aryn and temporary spousal support to the applicant, increasing after child support for Dale ends.

The applicant was ordered to pay child support for Dale until December 31, 2016.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay prejudgment interest on the equalization payment, rejecting the argument that pension transfer as a payment method negates interest.

The Plaintiff, Craig Frohlich, sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully obtaining declaratory relief, an injunction, and nominal damages in a dispute with his cottage neighbours, John and Diane Ferraro.

The Ferraros' counterclaim for a prescriptive easement was dismissed.

Frohlich argued he met or exceeded his offer to settle, entitling him to substantial indemnity costs post-offer.

The court found that Frohlich's offer to settle was broader than the relief ultimately granted at trial, particularly regarding property covered by water.

Therefore, Frohlich did not meet or exceed his offer, and partial indemnity costs were awarded throughout.

The court reduced the total partial indemnity costs from approximately $41,000 to $36,000, citing the Plaintiff's delay in amending his claim prior to trial as a factor in encouraging settlement.

The plaintiff property owner brought an action for trespass and an injunction against the defendant neighbours, who counterclaimed for a prescriptive easement over the dry land portion of the plaintiff's water lot.

The court found that the defendants' historical use of the land was either with the express or implied permission of the plaintiff and his predecessors, defeating the claim for a prescriptive easement.

The court granted the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering the dry portions of the water lot and awarded nominal damages for trespass.

Following a seven‑day civil trial concerning a prescriptive easement and negligent misrepresentation regarding a shared waterline, the successful plaintiff sought costs exceeding $300,000 after obtaining a declaration that no easement existed and damages of $25,500 against one defendant.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs as the successful party and that her Rule 49 offer justified partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

However, the court found the claimed fees and disbursements excessive and disproportionate to the result achieved, particularly given the plaintiff’s unsuccessful fraud and punitive damages claims and the large damages claim that was not proven.

Exercising discretion under Rule 57, the court reduced the fees by approximately 50% and disallowed certain expert and research disbursements.

Costs were allocated between the defendants in proportion to their responsibility for the issues at trial.