Jessica Grys

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the respondent, Bruce Boudreau, was entirely successful in opposing the appellant Randi Jakobsen's appeal.

The court ordered Ms. Jakobsen to pay Mr. Boudreau his costs of the appeal, fixed at $14,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order requiring her to pay spousal support to the respondent, whom the trial judge found was her common-law spouse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act, despite the trial judge's erroneous reference to the Divorce Act criteria for spousal support.

The court found this error not material due to significant overlap in statutory criteria and ample evidence supporting the respondent's economic dependence.

The appeal regarding spousal support and trial costs was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support and to determine the parenting schedule.

The parties agreed to a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule and that the respondent father would employ a live-in nanny during his parenting time.

The court held that the respondent's parenting time would not be suspended if the nanny was occasionally unavailable, and that the nanny's cost was a section 7 expense to be shared proportionately.

For support purposes, the court imputed income to the respondent under section 19(1)(i) of the Child Support Guidelines based on capital distributions he received from a trust, grossing up those tax-free amounts.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $327,000.

The applicant mother brought a motion to stay or consolidate a civil action commenced by her father-in-law with her family law application.

The father-in-law had advanced $1 million for the purchase of the matrimonial home, which the mother claimed was a gift and the father-in-law claimed was a loan.

The father-in-law commenced a civil action for possession of the home, while the mother sought exclusive possession and equalization in the family proceeding.

The court found that the central issue of whether the advance was a gift or a loan was common to both proceedings and ordered that the civil action be heard together with the family application to avoid inconsistent findings and save time and expense.