Peter B. Hambly

Following dismissal of a motion seeking declarations and partial summary judgment based on res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process in a civil action alleging misfeasance in public office, the court determined costs.

The moving party had sought numerous orders asserting that findings from a prior Federal Court decision conclusively established elements of liability against federal officials involved in an environmental review of a highway project.

The court held the motion was overly complex, repeatedly amended, and entirely unsuccessful.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from appellate authorities, the court concluded that the defendants’ claimed costs were modest given the scale and duration of the proceedings.

Costs of $309,844.95 were awarded to the defendants.

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.

Following earlier judgments concerning the sale of a winery business, the respondent sought costs related to proceedings leading to the order directing that the winery be listed for sale.

The moving party requested partial indemnity costs after the court found that the opposing parties’ proposed sale arrangements were inconsistent with the court’s earlier judgment and appeared designed to delay the sale.

The court considered the financial circumstances of the parties and the context of the dispute involving a failed winery venture funded by an investor and operated by the applicants.

Despite the moving party’s general success, the court declined to award costs.

The court cautioned that failure to cooperate with the ordered sale could result in significant future cost consequences.