John E. Merner

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a trial where the parties could not agree.

The applicant sought costs, arguing she was the successful party, while the respondent claimed divided success and financial hardship.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, having prevailed on major issues including custody, income imputation, child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court also found the respondent's conduct, including attempts to mislead the court regarding his income and assets, amounted to bad faith.

Considering the Family Law Rules, offers to settle, trial positions, and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour, the court fixed costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $60,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

This case involved a family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following the parties' separation and divorce.

The court made strong adverse credibility findings against the respondent due to evasiveness and contradictions in his testimony and financial disclosure.

The applicant was granted sole custody of the child with final decision-making authority, and the respondent's income was imputed at $150,000 for support purposes.

The court ordered child support and periodic spousal support, and an equalization payment from the respondent to the applicant.

Requests for lump sum spousal support and a restraining order against the respondent were denied.

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.

The applicant brought a Motion to Change seeking to terminate spousal support following her retirement from the federal government.

The respondent, who had sacrificed his career to support the applicant's career and care for their child, argued against termination.

The court found a material change in circumstances upon the applicant reaching age 59.92.

Applying the rule against double recovery from Boston v. Boston, the court determined that an appropriate support order could be achieved without resorting to the unequalized portion of the applicant's pension.

Spousal support was reduced but not terminated, set at $2,086 per month until age 67, and $1,304 per month thereafter.