2 total
Wife in 26-year traditional marriage entitled to share in husband's significant post-separation income increases.
Following a 26-year traditional marriage, the parties disputed spousal support and property equalization.
The court found the applicant had a strong claim for both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support due to her role as a stay-at-home parent.
The court imputed a minimum wage income to the applicant starting in 2022.
The court held that the applicant was entitled to share in the respondent's significant post-separation income increases, including Restricted Stock Units, as her contributions during the marriage laid the foundation for his later success.
The court fixed spousal support at $12,000 per month for 2024 when the respondent's income exceeded $350,000.
The court dismissed the respondent's late claim for retroactive support adjustments.
The applicant was ordered to pay occupation rent of $1,500 per month from May 2023.
The court ordered the parties' pensions to be equalized rather than divided at source, and allowed the deduction of notional disposition costs for a rental property.
The court fixed costs of a settled summary judgment motion at $2,500 payable in the cause, rejecting the husband's excessive full indemnity claim.
The applicant husband brought a motion for summary judgment regarding the date of separation.
The parties settled the separation date issue, agreeing to the husband's proposed date.
The court was then asked to determine the costs of the summary judgment motion.
The husband sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the wife capitulated and acted in bad faith.
The wife argued that settlement made a costs award inappropriate.
The court found no bad faith on the wife's part and criticized the husband's counsel for excessive billing and relying on outdated case law.
The court awarded costs fixed at $2,500, all-inclusive, payable in the cause of the ongoing application, significantly less than what the husband sought.
