Jennifer C. Johnston

This decision addresses costs following a six-day trial concerning parenting arrangements and child support.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and child support based on an imputed income of $60,000, while the respondent father sought joint custody and child support based on a lower imputed income.

The court granted the mother sole custody, provided the father with more access than the mother initially sought but less than he requested, and imputed an income of $55,000 to the father.

The mother sought full indemnity costs from the date of her comprehensive offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs for the period prior.

The father offered to pay $7,000, citing financial hardship.

The court found the mother achieved a much higher degree of success and that her January 9, 2019 offer to settle was as favourable as, or more favourable than, the trial outcome for the father.

The mother was awarded full costs from the date of her offer, fixed at $26,913.35, payable at $200 per month and enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, balancing the father's ability to pay with the mother's reasonable conduct and the purpose of encouraging settlement.

The Estate of Lois Jean Davey, administered by Geoffrey Craig, brought an application seeking a declaration of beneficial interest in a property owned by Geoffrey and Isabel Craig (his separated wife) based on a constructive trust, related to an in-law suite built by the deceased.

Isabel Craig sought dismissal under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the application frivolous and vexatious, dismissing it because the deceased's will explicitly stated the addition became Geoffrey's sole property and the estate had no claim.

The court held that the application was an improper attempt to bring a matrimonial claim in a different forum and was estopped by the clear terms of the will.

The respondent moved for interim spousal support.

Entitlement was not in dispute, only the amount.

The respondent sought $7,656.00 per month, arguing for an imputed income of $210,000.00 to the applicant and no income to herself.

The applicant proposed $3,000.00 per month, based on his declared salary of $84,900.00 and an imputed income of $20,000.00 to the respondent.

The court found it inappropriate for interim relief to impute the full retained earnings of the applicant's partially-owned farm business but recognized his real income was higher than his salary.

A modest income of $5,000.00 per year was imputed to the respondent due to her failure to provide evidence of inability to work.

The court ordered temporary spousal support of $3,800.00 per month, taxable to the recipient and deductible by the payor, effective January 1, 2017.

This interim order was made without prejudice to findings at trial.

This endorsement addresses the respondent's request for security for spousal support payments, following the applicant's motion to change.

The respondent sought a collateral mortgage on the applicant's jointly-owned property and additional life insurance, arguing that existing policies would be insufficient by 2026.

The applicant contended that her obligation was limited by the original divorce order, which specified that her support obligation would be a first charge on her estate if employment-based insurance was not in effect, and that a mortgage would adversely affect her sister's interest as a joint tenant.

The court declined to order a collateral mortgage due to the impact on the joint tenant and the pre-existing agreement.

However, it ordered the applicant to designate the respondent as an irrevocable beneficiary of 70% of her declining life insurance policies until age 71, with any shortfall becoming a first charge on her estate.

No costs were awarded.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion to change a spousal support order.

The applicant sought to terminate support or receive credit for overpayments, while the respondent opposed termination.

The court had previously reduced the applicant's support obligation but did not terminate it.

Both parties made offers to settle.

The court found that while the applicant had some success on the substantive motion, the respondent was successful in opposing the termination of support.

The respondent's offer to settle did not meet the requirements for full indemnity costs under Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules because it would have necessitated further litigation for the applicant.

Consequently, the respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs.

Cross-motions in a family law proceeding addressed disclosure, management of RESP funds, responsibility for matrimonial home expenses, exclusive possession of the home pending sale, and variation of child and spousal support.

The court ordered several disclosure steps, restricted withdrawals from the children's RESP without consent or court order, and directed procedures for relisting and selling the matrimonial home.

The applicant was permitted to remain in exclusive possession pending sale but was required to assume ongoing home expenses subject to limited cost sharing for major repairs.

The court also found a material change in circumstances and imputed income to the applicant due to underemployment when considering variation of support.

Cross-motions in a family law proceeding addressed disclosure, management of RESP funds, responsibility for matrimonial home expenses, exclusive possession of the home pending sale, and variation of child and spousal support.

The court ordered several disclosure steps, restricted withdrawals from the children's RESP without consent or court order, and directed procedures for relisting and selling the matrimonial home.

The applicant was permitted to remain in exclusive possession pending sale but was required to assume ongoing home expenses subject to limited cost sharing for major repairs.

The court also found a material change in circumstances and imputed income to the applicant due to underemployment when considering variation of support.