2 total
The court awarded $99,000 in costs to the applicant due to the respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct, making it enforceable as support.
This is a costs endorsement following a trial decision rendered on May 29, 2025 in a family law matter involving property division, spousal support, and child support.
The applicant sought costs of $113,826.40 on a substantial indemnity basis (80% of total incurred).
The respondent, who was self-represented, opposed the costs award on grounds of complexity, proportionality, and inability to pay.
The court found that the respondent's litigation conduct was unreasonable, including failure to make financial disclosure, failure to make any settlement offers despite four offers from the applicant, and inadequate trial preparation.
The court awarded costs of $99,000 to the applicant, enforceable as support by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.
The court admitted a first-time expert's vocational assessment evidence for the purpose of imputing income.
This endorsement addresses the admissibility and scope of expert evidence in a family law proceeding, specifically regarding a vocational assessment for the purpose of determining income imputation.
The court applies the framework from White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co. and R. v. Mohan, confirming the expert’s qualifications, impartiality, and the relevance and necessity of the evidence.
The court finds the expert, Ms. Talbot-Fletcher, qualified and her evidence admissible, and discusses the importance of impartiality and the evolving standards for expert testimony.
