Kali Elizabeth Larsen

Following a 26-year traditional marriage, the parties disputed spousal support and property equalization.

The court found the applicant had a strong claim for both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support due to her role as a stay-at-home parent.

The court imputed a minimum wage income to the applicant starting in 2022.

The court held that the applicant was entitled to share in the respondent's significant post-separation income increases, including Restricted Stock Units, as her contributions during the marriage laid the foundation for his later success.

The court fixed spousal support at $12,000 per month for 2024 when the respondent's income exceeded $350,000.

The court dismissed the respondent's late claim for retroactive support adjustments.

The applicant was ordered to pay occupation rent of $1,500 per month from May 2023.

The court ordered the parties' pensions to be equalized rather than divided at source, and allowed the deduction of notional disposition costs for a rental property.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a separation agreement, seeking to relocate with the parties' youngest child to Montreal and to impute income to the respondent father for child support purposes.

The court found a material change in circumstances had occurred when the older children ceased contact with the father and he stopped paying his share of section 7 expenses.

The court permitted the relocation, finding it in the child's best interests as the mother required family support to care for the child's significant medical needs.

The court imputed the father's income at $80,000 due to intentional under-employment and ordered him to pay ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and arrears.

Following a successful motion setting aside a prior contempt order, the applicant sought full recovery costs of approximately $12,959.66.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded because the matter concerned setting aside a contempt finding and the respondent was required to attend to assist the court, or alternatively that the bill was disproportionate.

The court held that the applicant was completely successful and that the respondent could have consented or taken a non-opposition position to avoid the hearing.

Applying modern costs principles emphasizing partial indemnification, encouragement of settlement, and discouragement of unnecessary litigation, the court found full indemnity costs unwarranted but awarded partial costs.

Costs of $5,500 all inclusive were ordered payable by the respondent to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 25(19)(e) of the Family Law Rules to set aside a contempt order made after she failed to attend the hearing.

She asserted that her former counsel advised her that attendance was unnecessary because the hearing date had been moved.

The court held that a party who reasonably relies on incorrect advice from counsel may be considered "unable" to attend within the meaning of the rule.

Given the quasi‑criminal nature of contempt findings and the absence of the applicant’s evidence at the original hearing, the court set aside the contempt finding, fine, and costs order and directed that the issue could be reheard on a full evidentiary record.