Leroy A. Crosse

Following the dismissal of the respondent's appeal regarding a credit against child support arrears, both parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought $5,793.03, while the respondent sought $9,434.35 or no costs, arguing that the applicant's actions delayed settlement.

The court applied the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

After considering the factors in Rule 24(11) and prior attendances, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $4,000.

The appellant father appealed final orders varying a prior child support order, which terminated his support obligations for two adult children at specific dates and granted him a $12,000 credit toward arrears.

He argued the trial judge failed to properly determine the amount of arrears and inadequately explained the basis for the credit.

Applying the appellate standard from Housen v. Nikolaisen, the court held that the trial judge’s findings were grounded in the evidentiary record and disclosed no palpable and overriding error.

The evidentiary deficiencies created by both parties justified the trial judge’s approach to determining termination dates and granting a limited credit.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the breakdown of their 12-year common law relationship, the applicant and respondent disputed property division, spousal support, child support, and travel consent for their children.

The court found that while the parties were engaged in a joint family venture, there was no unjust enrichment, and dismissed the trust claims regarding two properties, leaving title as is.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the respondent, ordering the applicant to pay $2,440 per month in spousal support for four years, and the respondent to pay $743 per month in child support.

The court also established a protocol for obtaining children's government documents and travel consent.

Application arising from a dispute over powers of attorney for property and personal care granted by an elderly individual diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.

Competing allegations were made that the son and a friend acting as attorney had each mismanaged the incapable person’s finances, including RRIF withdrawals and the sale of a residence.

The court found significant concerns with the administration of both attorneys and uncertainty regarding the grantor’s capacity when the powers of attorney were executed.

The court appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as guardian of property in place of the existing attorney and ordered both former attorneys to provide proper accounts for review.