P.D. Amey

Following a family law trial in which the applicant succeeded on spousal support and constructive trust claims, the court considered written submissions regarding costs.

Although the applicant sought full recovery costs, the court declined to grant them because the parties’ offers to settle were served only two days before trial and therefore did not comply with the timing requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court nonetheless considered the offers and the respondent’s unreasonable litigation conduct, including failure to comply with prior cost orders and deliberate financial conduct affecting support obligations.

The court concluded that enhanced partial indemnity costs were appropriate given the applicant’s success and the respondent’s conduct during litigation.

Following earlier reasons on the merits, the court addressed the issue of costs arising from an application relating to enforcement of a prior family law judgment.

The successful applicant sought substantial indemnity costs after alleging the respondents engaged in unreasonable conduct that delayed the proceeding and increased litigation expense, including taking an improper position regarding a mortgage and causing unnecessary disclosure and cross‑examination motions.

The respondents filed no responding submissions on costs.

The court found substantial indemnity costs appropriate under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure due to the respondents’ conduct.

Costs of $19,190.23 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded to the applicant payable forthwith.

The applicant sought a declaration that a marriage contract and subsequent amending agreement executed prior to marriage were valid and enforceable.

The respondent argued the agreements should be set aside under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act due to alleged nondisclosure of significant assets, lack of understanding of the agreements’ consequences, and misrepresentation and undue influence.

The court found the applicant had provided adequate financial disclosure and that the respondent understood the essential terms, including waivers of spousal support and equalization.

Independent legal advice had been obtained and the respondent chose not to pursue further disclosure.

The court also held that the applicant’s potential interest in a discretionary family trust was incapable of valuation and had been adequately disclosed as a contingent inheritance.

The marriage contract and amending agreement were upheld and the respondent’s application to set them aside was dismissed.