Joseph A. Irvine

The Applicant sought costs following a partially successful motion for disclosure from a non-party, Blue Water Metals.

The court found the Applicant more successful than Blue Water Metals, which had unreasonably resisted disclosure.

Considering the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance of the issues, the parties' conduct, and counsel's rates, the court awarded the Applicant $7,000 in costs against Blue Water Metals.

No costs were ordered against the Respondent.

The applicant brought a motion for specified financial disclosure from a company owned by the respondent's parents, where the respondent was currently employed, and for the respondent's father to attend for questioning.

The applicant alleged the respondent was shielding income to reduce his child and spousal support obligations.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the non-party company to produce client lists and financial statements, and ordering the respondent's father to attend for questioning, finding it would be unfair for the applicant to proceed to the motion to change without this information.

The parties separated after a seven-year unmarried relationship.

The trial judge found the respondent had established an unjust enrichment claim regarding the home owned by the appellant, concluding there was a joint family venture, and awarded him $86,500.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing her retroactive child support claim and in finding a joint family venture.

The child support ground was abandoned during the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the constructive trust claim, finding the trial judge's conclusions on unjust enrichment, joint family venture, and the proportionate damages award were supported by the evidence.

The appellants appealed a judgment regarding a mortgage dispute involving s. 22 and s. 36 of the Mortgages Act and a tax issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's comprehensive reasons and findings of fact were open to him and there was no basis to interfere.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.