Lindall S. McDonald

The applicant father brought a motion to change an amending agreement to terminate child support for two adult children.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to change the agreement to increase support based on the father's increased income and changes in the children's living arrangements.

The court dismissed the father's request to terminate support, finding that both children remained children of the marriage.

The court ordered the father to pay ongoing child support based on his prior years' incomes, accounting for the children's post-secondary education and living arrangements.

The applicant's unjust enrichment claim was dismissed after a six-day family law trial.

The respondent sought costs, relying on an offer to settle made under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and that her offer to settle, which proposed paying the applicant $10,000 for dismissal of all claims without costs, was more favourable than the judgment.

Considering the reasonableness and proportionality of costs, the court awarded the respondent $38,652.45 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, covering the period from the date of her offer.

The applicant's arguments regarding his financial position and health were not found to be a strong connection to the costs of the failed application.

The applicant sought a finding of unjust enrichment, a constructive trust, and partition and sale, or a monetary award, relating to real property in the respondent's name.

The parties were in a cohabiting relationship from 2008 to 2014.

The applicant claimed he provided labour to build the house with the expectation of joint ownership, while the respondent asserted a fee-for-services agreement ($10/hour plus living expenses).

The court found a valid contract for services, negating the "absence of juristic reason" element of unjust enrichment.

Furthermore, the court found no enrichment of the respondent, as she paid more for the property than its market value, and no corresponding deprivation of the applicant, whose earnings remained consistent with his historical income.

The application was dismissed.

Following settlement of a family law dispute involving custody, access, property, and support, the parties sought a determination of costs.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the general principle that costs typically follow success but may not be appropriate where litigation resolves by consent without adjudication.

The judge found that success between the parties was divided and that it was difficult to determine a clear winner from the settlement terms.

Allegations of unreasonable conduct could not be assessed due to lack of sworn evidence and disputed facts.

In the absence of compelling reasons, the court declined to award costs to either party.