Kurt W. Anders

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to issue and register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against three properties owned by the defendant, who was the common-law spouse of the plaintiff's deceased father.

The plaintiff challenged the validity of his father's holographic will, alleging lack of capacity and undue influence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff's evidence weak and concluding there was no triable issue regarding the properties.

Furthermore, the court held that the equities did not favour granting a CPL, as an existing non-dissipation order provided adequate security and damages would be a suitable alternative remedy.

This costs endorsement followed a five-day trial concerning equalization of net family property, imputation of income, spousal support, child support, and Section 7 expenses.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $45,225.03, while the Respondent argued for a 50% reduction and disallowance of a special disbursement.

The court, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and principles from Mattina v. Mattina, found the Applicant had significant overall success, particularly on equalization and support, despite not achieving her highest claims.

The Respondent's inadequate financial disclosure and unreasonable position on equalization were noted.

The court disallowed a special disbursement for investigation services deemed premature.

Ultimately, the Applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $26,071.40, with half attributed to child and spousal support.

The Applicant sought equalization of net family property, retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and Section 7 expenses.

The parties disputed the cohabitation date, the Respondent's interest in a farm property, and the inclusion of certain bank accounts and deductions in the Net Family Property Statement.

The court found the Applicant credible and the Respondent not credible, imputed income to the Respondent due to inadequate financial disclosure and intentional under-employment, and ordered an equalization payment, ongoing child and spousal support, and retroactive Section 7 expenses.

The divorce was granted.

Following a successful motion for child support and special expenses in a family law proceeding, the mother sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the father had refused to pay support after the child returned to reside with her and the maternal grandparents.

The father argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court rejected that submission, holding that costs should generally be fixed after each step under the Family Law Rules.

While the father’s refusal to pay support justified an award of costs, his position was not sufficiently unreasonable to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a prior spousal support order to continue support in accordance with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and to obtain retroactive support after the respondent ceased payments when the prior order allowed either party to seek variation.

The respondent argued his obligation terminated automatically and opposed retroactive support due to delay in bringing the motion.

The court found the interpretation issue moot but held it had jurisdiction under the Divorce Act to vary support retroactively.

Medical evidence established the applicant was unable to work due to health issues, constituting a material change in circumstances.

Ongoing support was ordered at the low range of the SSAG and made retroactive, with arrears payable by installments.