J. Stankiewicz

Following a bifurcated motion where the applicant husband successfully obtained a stay of temporary support orders and the release of trust funds, he sought full indemnity costs of $17,986.37.

The respondent wife argued against a costs award due to her limited financial means.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including reasonableness, proportionality, and the wife's ability to pay.

The court ordered the respondent wife to pay costs fixed at $11,500, payable in any event of the cause.

The applicant husband, an airline pilot, brought a motion to vary or stay temporary child and spousal support orders and to release funds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The husband had lost his employment due to a voluntary leave of absence for immigration purposes, followed by pandemic-related layoffs and the onset of tinnitus.

The court found that the husband met the test for an interim variation, as he currently had no income and was not intentionally underemployed given the pandemic and his medical condition.

The court suspended the husband's support obligations on an interim basis and ordered the release of $35,000 to each party from the matrimonial home proceeds.

Following a family law trial with divided success, the applicant husband sought full indemnity costs of over $100,000, relying on pre-trial offers to settle.

The respondent wife sought no costs, arguing success was divided and citing her modest financial means.

The court found that while the husband's offers did not strictly comply with Rule 18(14), his pre-trial conduct was more resolution-oriented than the wife's.

Taking into account the divided success, the wife's unreasonable refusal to engage in settlement, and her limited ability to pay, the court ordered the wife to pay costs fixed at $12,000.

Following an 11-year marriage, the parties proceeded to a family law trial to resolve issues of equalization, spousal support, and claims regarding the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the wife's claim for a constructive trust interest in the post-separation increase in the home's value, finding the increase was market-driven and the husband had paid the carrying costs.

The husband's claim for occupation rent was also dismissed.

For equalization, a loan from the husband's father was discounted to 5% of its face value due to the low probability of enforcement.

The wife was found entitled to compensatory spousal support, but the quantum was set at zero due to the priority of the husband's child support obligations.