Julius Dawn

Following earlier reasons terminating spousal support retroactively, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant, as the successful party, sought substantial costs relying on two settlement offers that were more favourable than the ultimate result and alleging unreasonable litigation conduct by the respondent.

The respondent argued that costs should be significantly reduced due to financial hardship and the alleged simplicity of the matter.

The court found that the respondent’s conduct unnecessarily increased litigation costs but expressed concern that the amount claimed was excessive for what was essentially a straightforward proceeding.

Costs were fixed globally at $25,000 payable by the respondent within 60 days.

The appellants appealed a decision allowing the severance of joint tenancies by a guardian of property.

They argued the severance constituted a change in testamentary disposition prohibited by s. 31(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the severance was a testamentary disposition, it was permitted under s. 35.1(3)(a) as necessary to comply with the guardian's duties.

The Court also upheld the application judge's decision to reject the appellants' contradictory affidavit evidence without directing a trial.