Mark F. Dedinsky

Costs decision following dismissal of a motion to change seeking spousal support approximately 24 years after the original proceeding.

The applicant argued each party should bear their own costs due to financial hardship and receipt of social assistance.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and confirmed that success is the starting point for determining costs.

Finding the respondent was the successful party and that the claimed legal fees were reasonable, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $7,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant wife sought spousal support 24 years after separating from the respondent husband.

The parties had previously executed an amending agreement that released the husband from paying spousal support.

The court treated the application as a motion to change under the Family Law Act.

Although the court found a material change in the wife's financial circumstances, it concluded that her inability to achieve self-sufficiency was due to her long-standing alcohol addiction rather than any economic consequences of the marriage.

The court found no entitlement to support and held that the wife failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the 24-year delay.

The application for spousal support was dismissed, and a divorce order was granted.

Following a successful application for spousal support, the applicant sought costs of the proceeding.

The court found the matter to be straightforward and confirmed that the applicant was the successful party.

Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was not engaged because none of the settlement offers triggered its application.

The respondent increased the applicant’s legal costs by alleging a conflict of interest against opposing counsel and later abandoning that claim.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 and ordered that the amount be treated as costs incurred to obtain support, enforceable through a support deduction order.

The applicant sought spousal support following a long-term marriage of approximately 30 years.

The court considered the parties’ financial circumstances, including the applicant’s employment history, assets received on separation, and pension income, as well as the respondent’s pension and consulting income.

The court found that the applicant was not significantly disadvantaged by the marriage or its breakdown and that many of her current financial difficulties resulted from personal career decisions.

Nevertheless, recognizing the parties’ joint family venture and income disparity during the marriage, the court determined that some spousal support was appropriate.

Support was fixed based primarily on the respondent’s pension income rather than his post-separation consulting income.