Evelyn K. Rayson

The respondent was largely successful in defending her former husband's appeal and pursuing her cross-appeal.

She sought full recovery costs of $40,422.60.

The Court of Appeal awarded her costs of $38,000, ordering that 25% of the award be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office as it was proportionate to the support-related issues at stake.

The appellant appealed an order settling amounts owing pursuant to a previous family law judgment, arguing errors in the calculation of post-judgment interest on an equalization payment and seeking credit for spousal support paid.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing the motion judge erred by including spousal support in her income when calculating her retroactive child support obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding no error in the interest calculation.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, holding that under the Child Support Guidelines, spousal support received must be deducted when calculating a payor's income for child support purposes.

The appellant's motion for leave to appeal costs was also dismissed.

In the first part of a bifurcated family law trial dealing with property issues, the court determined the treatment of the respondent's RRSP used under the Home Buyers Plan and a disputed pre-marriage loan.

The court held that the respondent was entitled to a date of marriage deduction for his $25,000 RRSP and had a date of separation asset of $21,668, subject to a notional tax rate of 25%.

The court also found, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent had an asset of $35,000 (US) owed to him on the date of marriage from a loan to his brother-in-law, rather than the $47,400 claimed.