3 total
The applicant was awarded $191,000 for unjust enrichment arising from a joint family venture.
The applicant, Tracie L. Galbraith, brought a trust claim against the respondent, Jeremy M. Kinsley, seeking a share of the home he purchased, following their 10-year cohabitation and the birth of three children.
The court found that the parties engaged in a joint family venture and that the respondent was unjustly enriched by the applicant's contributions, which included domestic services and financial support that enabled the respondent to build equity in the property.
A monetary award of $191,000 was granted to the applicant, representing one-half of the adjusted increase in the property's equity, applying a "value-survived" approach.
The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial farm to determine fair market value and calculated retroactive support arrears.
The parties, married in 1998 and separated in 2016, sought resolution on spousal and child support and equalization of net family property.
The court addressed Mr. Jantzen's income for support calculations, considering his termination from employment and health issues.
Retroactive support arrears were calculated and adjusted for tax neutrality and child tax benefits.
For ongoing support, Mr. Jantzen, currently unemployed, was ordered to make reasonable efforts to secure employment and provide regular updates.
The court ordered the matrimonial farm property to be listed for sale to ensure fair market value, rejecting the applicant's request for a vesting order based on an appraisal.
The respondent's pension was ordered to be divided equally at source.
Various chattels were valued for equalization, and a divorce was granted.
Costs of $8,000 awarded to largely successful applicant, tempered due to respondent's difficult personal circumstances.
Following a family law trial where the applicant wife was largely successful, she sought costs of $11,042.34 on a substantial indemnity basis.
The court reviewed the settlement offers and found the applicant's offer was reasonable while the respondent's was not.
However, considering the respondent's difficult personal circumstances, including health problems and unemployment, the court tempered the costs award and ordered the respondent to pay $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.