Lisa Bombardieri

The respondent husband sought costs following his successful motion to list the jointly-owned matrimonial home for sale.

The husband requested full indemnity costs of $7,397.30, arguing he beat his offer to settle and the applicant wife acted in bad faith.

The court found the husband was presumptively entitled to costs and met the criteria under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

However, because the husband's bill of costs lacked individual time dockets to separate fees incurred after the offer, and the wife's conduct did not amount to bad faith, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The wife was ordered to pay costs fixed at $5,548.00.

The respondent husband brought a motion for an order to list the jointly-owned matrimonial home for sale under the Partition Act.

The applicant wife opposed the motion, citing health issues, attachment to the community, and alleged oppression by the husband, despite having previously consented to the sale.

The court granted the motion, finding that the sale would not prejudice the wife's substantive family law rights and that her reasons for opposing did not overcome the husband's prima facie right to have the asset sold.

The parties could not agree on the terms of orders flowing from previous endorsements regarding support arrears, requiring the court to issue a further endorsement.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs, arguing the applicant acted in bad faith by attempting to enforce unascertainable arrears through the Family Responsibility Office despite the court's clear prior rulings.

The court found that the applicant's conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, as she sought to relitigate the issue of arrears without reasonable justification.

Consequently, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $5,214.95.