Kenneth Garland

Following competing family law motions regarding interim spousal support, business valuation, and control of corporate bank accounts, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant had partial success, obtaining interim spousal support and an order for a business valuation, while the respondent succeeded on the issue of exclusive control of the business bank account.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than strictly mathematical, the court determined that the applicant was the overall successful party.

However, the amount sought was excessive and there had been divided success.

Costs were therefore fixed at a reduced amount.

Following a motion concerning the appropriate income to be used in calculating child support, both parties sought costs.

The dispute arose from the payor’s claim that his present income had decreased and should be used instead of prior income, which would have produced significant arrears.

The court accepted the payor’s position on a temporary basis pending a further review of child support.

Although the issue was important and the argument somewhat novel, the payor was successful on the interim motion.

The court therefore awarded the successful party partial costs reflecting the short duration and limited scope of the motion.