Lori-Lynn Lynn Aylwin

Following a five-day trial on spousal support and a pre-trial settlement on child support, both parties sought costs.

The court declined to award costs for the child support settlement due to divided success.

However, the court awarded the applicant costs for the spousal support trial, finding that she was largely successful on the major issues, including her entitlement to compensatory support.

The court also found the respondent engaged in unreasonable litigation behaviour, including failing to provide evidence in chief by affidavit and taking unreasonable positions.

The respondent was ordered to pay $65,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The payor brought a motion to change to review spousal support after the expiration of a five-year period set in a previous consent order.

The court determined the review was a de novo hearing requiring no material change in circumstances.

Finding the recipient had a strong compensatory and non-compensatory claim arising from a traditional marriage, the court utilized the payor's post-separation income increases, setting his income at $724,797.

Spousal support was ordered for a total duration of 17 years with a step-down period, terminating in 2030.

Following a family law trial addressing net family property issues, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court noted that the trial reasons largely supported the mother’s position regarding the elements of net family property and raised credibility and disclosure concerns about the husband’s evidence.

Although the applicant’s bill of costs was not unreasonable, the court found that responsibility for the need for trial was not entirely one-sided.

Balancing these considerations, the court exercised its discretion to fix costs in favour of the applicant.

Costs were fixed at $60,000 all-inclusive.

The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which they operated a horse training business and farm.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, finding that the respondent could not saddle the applicant with business debts that were part of a joint enterprise with their son.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $31,455.03.

The court also imputed income to the respondent and ordered him to pay a lump sum spousal support of $80,000 to the applicant, resulting in a net payment to the applicant of $48,544.97.