F. Wood

Following a three‑day family law trial concerning retroactive support and related issues, the court addressed the issue of costs under the Family Law Rules.

The applicant argued that each party should bear their own costs or that the respondent should pay her costs, while the respondent sought costs on the basis that he was substantially more successful and had taken more reasonable positions.

The court considered the parties’ conduct, the complexity and importance of the issues, the reasonableness of settlement offers, and the respondent’s greater success at trial.

Although the court found the applicant had acted in bad faith by delaying her claims for more than ten years, it declined to award full indemnity costs because the respondent was not completely successful.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded in favour of the respondent.

Following a long‑delayed family law application commenced more than twelve years after separation, the court determined claims for equalization, retroactive child support, spousal support, and disposition of the matrimonial home.

The court held the equalization claim was statute‑barred under the Family Law Act limitation period.

Applying the framework from DBS v. SRG, the court awarded retroactive child support back to 2008 when the payor unilaterally altered mortgage payments that had formed part of an informal support arrangement.

The court rejected claims for spousal support under both compensatory and needs‑based models, finding no career disadvantage or unmet need and emphasizing the long passage of time since separation.

The matrimonial home was ordered to be appraised and either bought out or sold, with adjustments for child support arrears and funds withdrawn from home equity.

Following a bifurcated family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, and property equalization, the court determined outstanding issues relating to the respondent’s joint investment accounts and costs.

The applicant argued that the court had made a mistake in attributing 100% of the value of certain joint accounts to the respondent at the date of marriage while attributing only 50% ownership at the date of separation.

The court declined to amend the order under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, finding the date-of-marriage values were entered on consent and not the result of an obvious mistake.

On costs, the court found the applicant largely successful on the custody issues but that success on property and support issues was divided.

Costs were therefore awarded to the applicant only for the first portion of the bifurcated trial.