K. Kieller

The parties brought cross-motions regarding the enforcement of a 2017 consent order requiring the sale of three assets: a jointly owned cottage, and the respondent's business and commercial property.

The applicant sought the appointment of a Receiver/Manager to sell all three assets due to the respondent's alleged failure to sell them.

The court declined to appoint a receiver for the cottage, ordering the applicant to list it immediately.

However, the court appointed a Receiver/Manager for the business and commercial property, finding special circumstances existed because the applicant had no other means to force the sale and the respondent lacked incentive to sell.

Following a family law trial, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The unsuccessful party advanced an unreasonable theory at trial, requiring the opposing party to expend significant effort to establish entitlement to support and property division.

Although the successful party did not obtain the full quantum sought, the court found the litigation efforts necessary, including expert evidence relating to income.

Applying proportionality and the general principle that the successful party is presumptively entitled to costs, the court fixed costs in favour of the successful party.

The parties separated after a lengthy marriage.

The husband worked in an unregistered firewood business with his father and lived rent-free in a home titled to his parents.

The court found the husband's income was $100,000, accounting for unreported cash and personal benefits.

The court also found the husband had a 50% partnership interest in the business and a $100,000 beneficial interest in the home via constructive trust, both of which were included in his net family property.

The wife was awarded an equalization payment of $285,862.24, ongoing spousal support, and child support for their daughter's post-secondary education.

The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which they operated a horse training business and farm.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, finding that the respondent could not saddle the applicant with business debts that were part of a joint enterprise with their son.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $31,455.03.

The court also imputed income to the respondent and ordered him to pay a lump sum spousal support of $80,000 to the applicant, resulting in a net payment to the applicant of $48,544.97.