Jeffrey Richey

Following a family law trial concerning equalization of net family property, a prior costs award had granted the respondent substantial costs after he obtained a large equalization judgment.

After judgment, a serious error was discovered in the respondent’s net family property statement regarding the date-of-marriage value of his pension, which altered the equalization calculation and prompted an appeal.

The parties ultimately settled before the appeal hearing on the basis that the applicant owed a significantly reduced equalization payment.

The court reconsidered the earlier costs award and the costs of the appeal, finding that the respondent’s erroneous financial disclosure contributed to the litigation while the applicant achieved only partial success on appeal.

The court rescinded the earlier costs order and directed that each party bear their own costs.

A custody trial concerning a two-year-old child born in 2010.

The applicant, a non-biological father who has acted as the child's parent since birth, sought custody against the respondent, the child's maternal aunt, who sought custody on behalf of the biological family.

The biological mother, who suffers from serious drug addiction, supported the aunt's claim.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant, finding that the child's best interests were served by maintaining stability with his psychological father and primary caregiver, rather than being transferred to the biological family.

The court considered factors including the child's strong attachment to the applicant, the length of time in a stable home environment, the permanence of the applicant's plan versus the temporary nature of the aunt's plan, and the child's biracial heritage.

Following a family law equalization judgment requiring the applicant spouse to pay the respondent spouse $89,502.95, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The respondent sought a combination of partial indemnity and full recovery costs based on offers to settle made before trial.

The court held the offers did not comply with Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules and therefore could not trigger full recovery cost consequences, though the applicant’s failure to make any offer and rejection of the respondent’s offers were adverse factors.

After considering proportionality and the factors in Rules 18 and 24, the court fixed partial indemnity costs in favour of the respondent.