Michael Bruce Wannop

Following a five‑day family law trial, the court addressed costs after the parties were unable to agree.

The applicant had been largely successful at trial and sought costs exceeding $67,000, while the respondent sought comparable costs or alternatively an order that each party bear their own costs.

The court applied the presumption in Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules that a successful party is entitled to costs, while considering discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the parties’ financial circumstances.

Particular weight was given to the fact that the children primarily resided with the respondent and the potential financial impact of a costs award on the custodial parent.

The court ordered the respondent to pay reduced costs of $37,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable from her share of the matrimonial home proceeds or through set‑off against spousal support if necessary.

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support retroactive to July 1, 2011, along with related relief including maintenance of health benefits, life insurance, vehicle possession, and financial disclosure from corporations controlled by the respondent.

The principal dispute concerned the parties’ respective incomes and whether income should be imputed to the applicant for purposes of calculating interim support.

The court declined to impute additional income to the applicant and determined the respondent’s income based on an averaged assessment of fluctuating business income.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and principles governing interim support motions, the court ordered interim support based on income‑sharing and the goal of approximating the marital standard of living.

Retroactive interim spousal support and additional disclosure orders were granted.

Following a family law judgment awarding lump sum spousal support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $64,000, while the opposing party argued for a significantly lower amount based on proportional success and reasonableness.

The court emphasized that reasonableness governs costs determinations and considered the parties’ settlement offers, litigation conduct, and the lack of disclosure of the successful party’s actual legal accounts.

Finding the claimed bill of costs excessive and containing items that constituted overhead or unsupported disbursements, the court reduced the amount and fixed a lump sum costs award.

Costs were ordered payable concurrently with the previously ordered lump sum support.

A spouse sought continued spousal support pursuant to a review clause in a separation agreement that provided for termination but allowed review before the end date.

The court held that the review was not limited to assessing self‑sufficiency and must consider all factors under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, including compensatory, contractual, and non‑compensatory bases for support.

The evidence showed the recipient spouse had left the workforce for many years to care for children, causing a lasting income disparity despite her later return to full‑time employment.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and relevant jurisprudence, the court found continued support appropriate.

To minimize future conflict between the parties, support was ordered as a lump sum rather than ongoing periodic payments.