Kathleen P.M. Bingham

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion to change a final spousal support order, the applicant sought costs.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful and had made a reasonable offer to settle that triggered full indemnity costs consequences under Rule 18(14).

The respondent's conduct in pursuing a meritless motion shortly after the final order was deemed highly unreasonable.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $6,302.00 and designated the award as a support order enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligation of $1,750 per month.

He argued that he had experienced significant financial hardship, including eviction, and that the applicant's receipt of divided CPP credits constituted a material change.

The court found that the respondent's financial difficulties were primarily due to his own accumulation of support arrears and costs awards.

The court also held that the division of CPP credits did not constitute double dipping.

Finding no material change in circumstances for either party, the court dismissed the motion to change.

Following a 34-year marriage, the applicant sought ongoing and retroactive spousal support.

The respondent conceded entitlement but argued income should be imputed to the applicant, who worked part-time at a grocery store.

The court declined to impute income, finding the applicant was making reasonable efforts given her limited work history and significant health issues, including epilepsy and post-concussive syndrome.

The court ordered ongoing spousal support of $1,750 per month and retroactive support commencing from the date the matrimonial home was sold.