Pamela L. Hebner

The appellant husband appealed judgments in a debt action and a matrimonial proceeding.

In the debt action, the trial judge found the husband jointly liable with his former wife for three loans advanced by her father.

In the matrimonial proceeding, the trial judge ordered spousal support, child support including section 7 expenses, and determined equalization amounts without discounting the wife's debts to her father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions or assessment of credibility.

Former spouses brought competing motions in family proceedings.

The applicant sought interim spousal support, while the respondent moved for summary judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim to equalization and division at source of the respondent’s pension following the applicant’s bankruptcy discharge.

The court held that the marital roles established entitlement to interim spousal support and ordered temporary support based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

However, applying bankruptcy and family property jurisprudence, the court concluded that any equalization claim arising at separation constituted a provable claim in bankruptcy and was released upon the applicant’s discharge.

Summary judgment was therefore granted dismissing the pension-related equalization claim.

Following an appeal where the appellant succeeded in reducing the amount payable but failed to obtain a new trial or overturn the setting aside of a domestic contract, the court determined costs.

The respondent was deemed largely successful and awarded $25,000 in appeal costs.

The issue of trial costs, originally awarded on a substantial indemnity scale, was remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration in light of the appeal outcome.

Following several complex family law motions concerning support issues, the court was required to determine the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought $45,000 plus additional preparation costs, asserting complete success and unreasonable conduct by the respondent.

The respondent argued the applicant achieved only partial success and that significant reductions to child and spousal support constituted substantial success for him.

Applying the flexible approach to costs under r. 24 of the Family Law Rules and emphasizing proportionality and reasonable expectations, the court found the applicant was mostly successful but that the amount claimed was excessive.

The court awarded $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office as expenses related to support.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award after considering the parties’ written submissions and offers to settle under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the wife achieved results equal to or better than her offer to settle and was therefore entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

However, the court reduced the amount claimed due to concerns about excessive clerk hourly rates, insufficient billing detail, and unnecessary trial time devoted to credibility attacks.

The court fixed the wife’s costs at $80,000 for fees plus $8,981.02 in disbursements.

Twenty‑five percent of the costs were deemed related to support issues for enforcement and bankruptcy protection purposes.

On a family law appeal arising from marriage breakdown, the court upheld the refusal of an adjournment and rejected an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias against the trial judge.

It also upheld the setting aside of a domestic contract under s. 56(4)(b) of the Family Law Act where the respondent did not understand the nature or consequences of the agreement and had no meaningful independent legal advice.

The court held that, although unjust enrichment was established, the trial judge erred by granting a proprietary constructive trust without first considering whether a monetary remedy would suffice under the Kerr framework.

The proper remedy was equalization under the Family Law Act, resulting in an equalization payment of $390,646.77 secured by a charge on the farm.

Retroactive child support from the date of separation was upheld, but interest on arrears was reduced from 10 per cent to 3 per cent, and the loan repayment order was set aside.

A custody and child support dispute following a nine‑day trial concerning a child born in 2006 to unmarried parents.

The applicant sought sole custody and increased child support, while the respondent sought joint custody and equal week‑about parenting time.

The court addressed complex issues regarding the respondent’s income derived from numerous corporations and preferred the evidence of the respondent’s financial expert when determining income for child support purposes.

Child support was fixed at $3,750 per month based on an averaged income assessment and the child’s realistic needs, with no retroactive award given the respondent’s longstanding voluntary payments.

Joint custody was ordered with the child’s primary residence with the mother and structured parenting time for the father.

The applicant sought an order requiring the respondent to pay $84,610 in interim disbursements pursuant to Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules in advance of trial.

The motion was heard shortly before trial and significant affidavit evidence was excluded under Rule 14(20)4, limiting the applicant’s evidentiary record.

The court reviewed the principles governing interim disbursements, including the need to demonstrate that the claim has sufficient merit and that the moving party lacks the financial ability to pursue the litigation without assistance.

Although there was a significant income disparity between the parties, the applicant failed to establish that the requested disbursements were necessary, reasonable, or that she was incapable of funding the litigation, particularly where substantial amounts had already been paid.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 17-year marriage.

The respondent owned a business prior to the marriage, which was excluded from his net family property by a marriage contract.

During the marriage, the applicant signed an indemnity agreement to protect herself from liabilities related to the respondent's business when refinancing a mortgage.

At trial, the court found that the 'Due To Shareholder' account was part of the excluded business interest.

However, the court held that the indemnity agreement constituted a written agreement under s. 5(6)(g) of the Family Law Act.

Given the complex intermingling of personal and business finances, the court concluded that an equal division of net family property would be unconscionable and ordered an unequal division, resulting in no equalization payment being owed by the applicant.

The court also imputed an income of $40,000 to the respondent for child support purposes and ordered him to reimburse the applicant for various expenses related to the matrimonial home and cottage.

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.

Following a family law trial in which the applicant was completely successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs of $72,000, arguing the respondent’s unreasonable litigation position forced the matter to trial.

The court found the respondent’s insistence that the applicant support herself unreasonable given the caregiving demands of raising two severely autistic children, but also concluded the applicant pursued the case with excessive litigation effort and sought inflated recovery.

Considering the parties’ financial circumstances and the principles of fairness and proportionality, the court fixed costs at a reduced all-inclusive amount.

The court declined to order payment of costs from the respondent’s locked-in retirement account under the Family Law Act.

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.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that granted a divorce and made orders regarding support and equalization of assets.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's awards of lump sum and retroactive spousal support, the transfer of a time share, and dismissed allegations of bias.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding errors in the calculation of 2008 child support (which should have been based on actual 2008 income rather than 2007 income), the use of a vesting order to satisfy a joint line of credit, and the inclusion of a post-valuation date tax refund in the appellant's net family property.

The appellant husband appealed a trial decision ordering him to pay spousal support of $1,500 per month for five years and thereafter until the respondent wife obtained employment.

The parties had a short relationship of three-and-a-half years with no children.

The Divisional Court upheld the quantum of support, finding no palpable and overriding error, but found the indeterminate duration to be an error in principle given the short marriage.

The appeal was allowed in part to impose a firm termination date for spousal support.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment awarding sole custody of the parties' two children to the respondent mother and failing to determine access.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by placing undue emphasis on the father's past deceitful conduct and insufficient emphasis on the children's best interests under the Divorce Act.

The trial judge failed to consider the children's needs, the maximum contact principle, and the merits of the existing shared parenting arrangement.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered on the issues of custody, access, and child support.