Mark Simpson

Following a complex family law trial where the respondent was largely successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant failed to file costs submissions.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle, finding the respondent beat his offer on the equalization issue but not on all issues.

The court noted the applicant's unreasonable and obstructive behaviour throughout the litigation, which caused significant delay and wasted resources.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $125,000 on a partial recovery basis, to be credited against the equalization payment owed to the applicant.

The parties separated after a 6.5-year marriage.

The court resolved corollary issues including equalization, child support, spousal support, and property damage.

The court found the applicant to be a highly uncredible witness.

The applicant's claims for child support and ongoing spousal support were dismissed, with the court finding the respondent did not stand in the place of a parent to her son, and that her entitlement to spousal support had expired.

The court awarded the respondent $120,000 in damages in tort, finding the applicant intentionally turned off the furnaces in the matrimonial home, causing the pipes to freeze and burst.

An equalization payment of $1,544,025 was ordered payable to the applicant, subject to significant credits in favour of the respondent.

The respondent was successful at trial after the applicant reneged on a settlement agreement and misled the court by denying its existence.

The court permanently stayed $8,200 in prior costs awards made against the respondent, finding it would be an undeserved windfall for the applicant.

The court awarded the self-represented respondent $7,500 in substantial indemnity costs for the trial, finding the applicant's conduct constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage, leaving two young daughters in the primary care of the applicant mother.

The respondent father sought joint custody and shared residence, while the applicant sought sole custody.

The court found that the parties' high level of conflict and inability to communicate made joint custody unworkable, awarding sole custody to the applicant.

The court also modified the access schedule to provide more stability for the children.

Additionally, the court imputed income to the respondent based on his undeclared earnings as a sports referee, setting his income for child support purposes at $90,000, and ordered him to contribute to section 7 daycare expenses.