Juliana Dapula

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a motion for temporary spousal support.

The court considered whether the mother’s offer to settle attracted costs consequences under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules and found it did not, due to the offer being a final settlement on a temporary motion and served with insufficient notice.

The court analyzed the concept of divided success on the motion, concluding the mother was the more successful party on the dominant issue of prospective temporary spousal support.

The court declined to defer the costs decision to the trial judge, emphasizing that temporary support orders are routinely subject to adjustment and are not "without prejudice." Ultimately, the court ordered the father to pay costs of $1,200 to the mother.

The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary spousal support from the applicant father after a 15-year cohabitation.

The mother claimed disability since 2016 and sought compensatory and non-compensatory support.

The father argued the mother was deliberately unemployed and sought to impute income to her, requesting the issue be sent to trial.

The court found the mother had established a prima facie entitlement to temporary spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, rejecting the father's request to impute income or defer the decision to trial.

The court ordered the father to pay $2,000 per month in temporary spousal support, starting April 1, 2024, aiming to equalize net disposable incomes given the shared parenting arrangement.