Jerome J. Bergart

Following a family law trial, the court determined the issue of costs after the successful party had made multiple offers to settle for amounts less than the ultimate judgment.

The court found that the trial was unnecessary in light of the earlier offers and that the successful party was therefore entitled to substantial indemnity costs for preparation and attendance at trial.

Because the moving party failed to provide docket details with the original costs submissions, the court independently calculated allowable hours for trial and preparation.

The court fixed legal fees, law clerk time, and disbursements and applied HST to the approved legal fees.

The parties lived in an unmarried domestic arrangement and jointly operated several motel properties over many years.

Following their separation, the plaintiff claimed an interest in the properties based on unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The court found that the parties operated as a partnership, contributing equal effort and capital.

The plaintiff was awarded a 50% interest in the Fairview Motel, a 50% share of the proceeds from the sale of the Queensway Motel, a 25% interest in the Hillcrest property, and reimbursement for joint funds unilaterally withdrawn by the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim for spousal support was dismissed.

The applicant sought to set aside a marriage contract entered into with the respondent shortly after their marriage.

The contract provided for a regime of separate property and a waiver of spousal support unless the marriage lasted at least ten years.

The parties separated after three and a half years.

The applicant argued the contract should be set aside under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act due to lack of financial disclosure, failure to understand its nature and consequences, and unconscionability.

The court found that while the respondent failed to disclose significant assets, the applicant had independent legal advice, understood the contract, and there was no duress or unconscionability.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to set aside the contract.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claim to set aside the spousal support waiver under section 33(4), finding no unconscionable circumstances.