L. Stam

Following a successful trial of an issue where a marriage contract was set aside, the applicant sought costs of $21,415.93.

The respondent argued against the quantum, citing his limited income and the applicant's offers to settle.

The court found that the applicant's offers did not trigger substantial indemnity costs under Rule 18 but rejected the respondent's argument regarding ability to pay.

The court disallowed claims for support staff and awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs fixed at $15,958.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a marriage contract executed shortly before the parties' marriage.

The contract was drafted by a single lawyer who acted for both parties without providing independent legal advice or requiring full financial disclosure.

The court found that the lack of financial disclosure and independent legal advice meant neither party understood the nature or consequences of the contract.

The court exercised its discretion under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act to set aside the marriage contract.

The father brought a motion for an order requiring the parties and their two children to attend a multi-day family reunification therapy program, alleging that the mother was alienating the children from him.

The mother opposed the motion and refused to consent to the therapy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father had not established alienation, that counselling requires the cooperation of both parents, and that the proposed therapy constituted 'treatment' under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, thereby requiring the consent of the mother and presumptively the children.