Lauren Daneman

The Applicant mother sought prospective and retroactive child support for the parties' child and to terminate or vary a preservation order on the former matrimonial home.

The Respondent father opposed retroactive support prior to August 2023 and the termination of the preservation order.

The court ordered temporary retroactive child support from January 1, 2023, and varied the preservation order to allow it to be registered against another property owned by the Mother, rather than terminating it.

The issue of child support from separation to December 31, 2022, was reserved for trial.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of both an appeal and a cross-appeal.

The respondent sought $38,580 in costs for the appeal, while the appellant proposed $7,500.

The court, considering the issues raised and the limited resources of the parties, awarded the respondent $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant sought to overturn a trial decision regarding spousal support quantum and duration, arguing the trial judge erred by deviating from the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) and double-counting her new partner's contributions.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

The court affirmed the trial judge's discretion in determining spousal support, noting that SSAGs are advisory and re-partnering is a valid reason for deviation.

It also upheld the costs award, reiterating the high standard for appellate intervention in discretionary costs decisions.

The wife sought costs following her success on two motions, one brought by the husband for disclosure and one brought by the wife for temporary support and release of funds.

The court found the wife was presumptively entitled to costs and had met the criteria under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules for one of her offers to settle.

The court also found the husband acted in bad faith by failing to comply with the order to release funds forthwith.

The court awarded the wife costs in the amount of $22,906.79, to be paid from the husband's share of the net proceeds of sale held in trust.

This appeal arose from a long-standing, high-conflict family law dispute.

The appellants challenged a motion judge's order that clarified spousal support obligations, addressed the impact of bankruptcy on an equalization payment secured by a letter of credit, and apportioned trial costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's clarifications that periodic support continued due to the husband's failure to exercise a lump sum option, that the letter of credit securing equalization and support created an equitable trust not extinguished by bankruptcy, and that the allocation of trial costs was appropriate.