Thomas G. Bastedo

Following a second trial in a family law matter, the court determined the costs for both the first and second trials.

The first trial had been overturned on appeal due to inadequate reasons by the trial judge.

The court declined to award costs for the first trial, finding neither party at fault for its failure.

For the second trial, the applicant was substantially more successful and had made a reasonable offer to settle.

However, the court noted that both parties had unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $150,000 for the second trial.

In this family trial arising from a long-running marriage breakdown, the court determined the enforceability of an Islamic Mahr, child support and section 7 expenses, equalization, post-separation property adjustments, and spousal support.

The court set aside the Mahr because the parties did not read Arabic, there was no reliable evidence of negotiation or informed consent, and the court was not satisfied the husband understood the nature of what he signed.

For child support, the court accepted the applicant's accounting evidence, declined to impute additional income for intentional underemployment, imputed at least $200,000 income to the respondent due to unreliable disclosure, and ordered ongoing table support based on $500,000 income with equal sharing of specified section 7 expenses.

The court ordered the respondent to pay equalization and post-separation adjustment amounts, and dismissed the respondent's retroactive and ongoing spousal support claims for lack of compensatory or needs-based entitlement.

The father applied to reduce his child support payments after the child began spending 50 percent of the time with him.

The Supreme Court of Canada established the proper approach to calculating child support under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines for shared custody arrangements.

The Court held that there is no presumption in favour of the Guidelines amount or a simple set-off.

Instead, courts must take a contextual approach, considering the Table amounts, the increased costs of shared custody, and the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each spouse and the child.

The father was ordered to pay $500 per month.

After a 23-year unmarried cohabitation, the appellant challenged a trial judgment that found the respondent had been unjustly enriched through her child care, household management, financial contributions, and work in the family business.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the appellant was enriched, the respondent suffered a corresponding deprivation, and there was no juristic reason for the enrichment.

It also upheld a remedial award that effectively increased the respondent's asset position by $170,000 through property transfers and cash, finding the result fell within the generous ambit of reasonableness in long-term domestic unjust enrichment cases.

The respondent's cross-appeal seeking a 50 percent share of total assets was dismissed.