Robert Martin

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order requiring him to pay $150,000 in lump sum child support and ordering his property to vest absolutely in the respondent if unpaid.

The respondent died prior to the appeal, and the proceeding was continued by a litigation administrator.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lump sum support order, finding it was a reasonable exercise of discretion under s. 10(1) of the Child Support Guidelines given the appellant's dissipation of capital assets and failure to pay support since 2001.

However, the court set aside the vesting order, replacing it with an order that the property stand as security for the support order.

Following a family law hearing, the court addressed the parties’ competing submissions on costs.

The court considered the applicable Rules governing costs and the parties’ settlement positions.

The respondent argued that he had achieved success warranting a costs award; however, the court found that success in the proceeding was divided.

The respondent’s complicated and insufficiently explained income situation made proper evaluation of his offer to settle difficult, and the applicant’s decision not to accept it was not unreasonable.

The court ordered that there be no order as to costs.