Mary Ann Currie

Following a family law trial between long-term unmarried spouses, the court addressed costs and the form of the final order.

The applicant had partially succeeded on a claim for unjust enrichment and was successful on spousal support, while failing to include the respondent’s pension in the unjust enrichment calculation.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court emphasized the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs and the principle of reasonableness.

The applicant sought $15,000 in costs but the court determined that a reduced award was appropriate given the mixed property outcome.

Costs of $10,000 plus HST and disbursements were awarded, with $5,000 deemed enforceable as a support order.

Following the breakdown of a 26‑year common law relationship, the applicant sought relief for unjust enrichment and spousal support.

The court applied the framework from Kerr v. Baranow to determine whether the parties had engaged in a joint family venture.

It found that the applicant’s financial and domestic contributions over the long relationship conferred tangible economic benefits and that the respondent retained a disproportionate share of accumulated wealth without juristic reason.

A remedial monetary award was ordered based on the parties’ respective chattels and bank accounts, along with payment for the applicant’s half interest in the jointly owned home, but the respondent’s pension was excluded due to lack of causal connection.

The court also ordered ongoing spousal support based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines given the income disparity and length of the relationship.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support following the breakdown of a 14.5-year marriage.

The applicant had retired shortly after separation, while the respondent was on long-term disability.

The court found that decisions regarding retirement made during the marriage triggered entitlement to spousal support.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $342 per month, set at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to reflect the applicant's obligation to become self-supporting.

On an interlocutory motion in a family law proceeding, the moving party sought an order permitting the sale of jointly owned matrimonial property consisting of the matrimonial home and an adjoining parcel of land.

The responding party opposed the immediate sale and sought to preserve the opportunity at trial to obtain a vesting order transferring the other spouse’s interest in satisfaction of an anticipated equalization payment under s. 9(1)(d)(i) of the Family Law Act.

The court held that although a joint owner normally has a prima facie right to sale, when the property is a matrimonial home the moving party must demonstrate that the other spouse’s refusal is unreasonable.

In this case both parties ultimately contemplated sale, but disagreed as to timing and process.

The court permitted the sale to proceed subject to structured terms designed to allow the responding party an opportunity to purchase the property before listing and to ensure fair market value.

Following a three-day family trial concerning child support, spousal support, and section 7 extraordinary expenses, the applicant husband sought full indemnity costs of over $83,000 based on several offers to settle under the Family Law Rules.

The court held that the offers contained imprecise and severable cost provisions, preventing a finding that the judgment was more favourable than the offers for purposes of rule 18(14).

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the applicant was the successful party but declined full indemnity, particularly because significant preparation related to custody, access, and property issues that were settled before trial.

The court fixed reasonable costs for the trial at $15,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The resulting costs award was ordered to be set off against the applicant’s ongoing child support obligations.

Following a family law motion concerning interim spousal support and related relief, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had obtained interim spousal support and reinstatement of extended health coverage, though the support amount awarded was approximately half of what was requested and income had been partially imputed.

The court applied the presumption under Rule 24(1) that a successful party is entitled to costs but considered the mixed success, the absence of an offer to settle, and unnecessary attendances due to adjournments.

A reduced costs award was therefore fixed as fair and reasonable, payable at the conclusion of the trial and subject to variation depending on the outcome of the retroactive support issue.

The responding spouse brought a motion seeking interim spousal support and related procedural relief in a family law proceeding following a 25‑year marriage.

The dispute centered on the proper determination of the respondent spouse’s income where he operated through a closely‑held corporation.

The court considered whether retained corporate earnings and certain business expenses should be attributed as personal income for support purposes.

Finding that some retained earnings and personal-use components of corporate vehicle and utility expenses should be imputed, the court fixed the respondent spouse’s income at approximately $66,258 for interim purposes.

Applying the Divorce Act and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered interim spousal support pending trial.

Interim family law motion concerning the sale of a matrimonial home, spousal support, and interim equalization payments following separation after a long-term marriage.

The respondent sought orders requiring appraisal, repairs, and financial contributions to improve the value of the property prior to sale.

The court declined to require repairs or a formal appraisal and ordered that the property remain listed at its current price, emphasizing that delays could hinder a prompt sale.

The court granted the applicant exclusive possession of the home subject to the respondent’s right to access the property for staging and ordered the applicant to maintain carrying costs.

The court also ordered interim spousal support and monthly payments on account of equalization, considering the interaction between pension income and the principle against double recovery.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following separation.

The primary dispute concerned the income to be imputed to the respondent, who controlled a jointly owned Tim Horton's franchise.

The respondent argued income should be set at $120,000 based on a projected available cash analysis, while the applicant relied on the respondent’s sworn financial statement showing income of approximately $169,000.

The court found the projection unreliable due to unsupported assumptions and incomplete financial disclosure, including the absence of updated financial statements and corporate records.

Income of $169,000 was imputed to the respondent, resulting in guideline child support for three children and spousal support within the advisory range.