Jeffrey Lloyd Eason

Following a trial decision varying spousal support from $2,900 per month to $2,000 per month, the court addressed costs under the Family Law Rules.

Both parties relied on Rule 24 and argued they were the successful party, with particular emphasis on the reasonableness of their respective settlement offers.

The court found the respondent’s offer of $1,951 per month was significantly closer to the ultimate award than the applicant’s settlement position of approximately $2,900 to $3,000 per month.

The court rejected the applicant’s argument that she was the successful party and concluded the respondent had been substantially successful.

Costs of $5,000 all inclusive were awarded to the respondent, payable by monthly deductions from spousal support.

Following a 23‑year marriage, the parties disputed the appropriate quantum of indefinite spousal support.

Entitlement was not contested, but the payor spouse argued income should be imputed to the recipient spouse because she had made insufficient efforts toward economic self‑sufficiency after separation.

The court considered the objectives of spousal support under the Divorce Act, including the promotion of self‑sufficiency, and the principles governing imputation of income.

Finding that the recipient spouse had not made reasonable efforts to obtain employment or retraining, the court imputed income at $20,000 per year.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court reduced the monthly support obligation from $2,900 to $2,000 and ordered that the obligation be secured by life insurance.