M. Stratton

Following a four‑day family law trial, the court determined costs.

The applicant had been successful on virtually every issue and had previously made a Rule 18 offer to settle that was as favourable or more favourable than the result obtained at trial.

The respondent’s conduct was found to be unreasonable, including unilateral termination of spousal and child support and maintaining untenable positions through trial.

Applying Rules 18 and 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held the applicant was entitled to partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and full recovery thereafter.

The court reduced the requested amount slightly and ordered costs payable forthwith.

Following separation, the parties disputed retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

The respondent had voluntarily paid support for a period but later terminated all payments, forcing the applicant to pursue litigation.

The court declined to award retroactive support for the earliest post‑separation period but held that the respondent was responsible for unpaid support after he unilaterally stopped payments.

The court refused to impute additional income to the applicant, finding her efforts to operate a small business while caring for the children reasonable in the circumstances.

The prior consent support order was confirmed and made retroactive for the unpaid period, and new ongoing support levels were set based on the respondent’s income.