J. Ironside

Following a four‑day family law trial addressing property division and spousal support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Although the applicant obtained significant retroactive support and equalization relief, success at trial was mixed, with several issues resolved in the respondent’s favour, including income findings and an inheritance exclusion claim.

The court considered the parties’ settlement offers under rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules and the general costs factors under rule 24.

Substantial indemnity costs were found inappropriate due to mixed success and reasonable litigation conduct by both parties.

The court reduced the applicant’s claimed partial indemnity costs and ordered the respondent to pay a fixed amount.

Following a 14-year marriage, the parties proceeded to trial to resolve issues of child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court determined the respondent's income, accounting for bonuses and a voluntary job change, and imputed $20,000 in income to the applicant, recognizing her long absence from the workforce to care for the children.

The court awarded retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as indefinite spousal support in the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to address compensatory and non-compensatory needs.

The applicant's claim to exclude a $10,000 inheritance from her net family property was dismissed, as the court found the funds were used for family landscaping, resulting in an equalization payment of $34,659 to the applicant.

Following a family law trial addressing net family property issues, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court noted that the trial reasons largely supported the mother’s position regarding the elements of net family property and raised credibility and disclosure concerns about the husband’s evidence.

Although the applicant’s bill of costs was not unreasonable, the court found that responsibility for the need for trial was not entirely one-sided.

Balancing these considerations, the court exercised its discretion to fix costs in favour of the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $60,000 all-inclusive.

The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which they operated a horse training business and farm.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, finding that the respondent could not saddle the applicant with business debts that were part of a joint enterprise with their son.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $31,455.03.

The court also imputed income to the respondent and ordered him to pay a lump sum spousal support of $80,000 to the applicant, resulting in a net payment to the applicant of $48,544.97.