Mary Anne Kril

The court determined costs following a six-day family law trial.

The respondent father was found to be the successful party on most issues, particularly child-related matters and property equalization, despite the applicant mother's partial success on a date of marriage deduction.

The respondent sought full recovery costs based on an offer to settle, but the court found the offer did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court also declined to find the applicant acted in bad faith under Rule 24(8), though her conduct was deemed egregious.

Considering the respondent's overall success, the applicant's unreasonable behaviour during litigation (denying access, disobeying court orders, seeking unavailable relief), the reasonableness of counsel's time and rates, and the applicant's superior financial position, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $95,000 in costs.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a motion to change regarding spousal support.

The Respondent was deemed the successful party in the underlying motion, as the court ordered indefinite support of $1,000 per month, contrary to the Applicant's position that no support was payable.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, finding the Respondent's offer more aligned with the final order.

The Applicant's self-representation and unreasonable position at trial contributed to increased costs for the Respondent.

Considering proportionality, reasonableness, and the Applicant's financial circumstances, the court awarded the Respondent $15,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable as support.

The Applicant Husband sought an order confirming the termination of spousal support effective July 29, 2008, based on an alleged agreement.

The Respondent Wife sought an order for spousal support commencing October 1, 2017.

The court found that the Respondent Wife did not release her claim to spousal support on a final basis in 2008, as the alleged agreement did not meet the formal requirements of a domestic contract under the Family Law Act and was made under circumstances of vulnerability and unfairness.

The court imputed income to the Applicant Husband due to intentional under-employment and ordered him to pay spousal support of $400 per month from October 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019, and $1,000 per month indefinitely commencing January 1, 2020.