Rachel Laforge

Following a family law trial concerning spousal support and equalization of net family property, the court addressed costs.

The parties disputed entitlement to costs and relied on multiple offers to settle, some of which were made on the eve of trial and therefore fell outside the cost consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that although success was divided, the respondent spouse was overall more successful on the most contentious issues, including the quantum of spousal support.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded, but full or substantial indemnity costs were declined given the complexity of the issues and partial success of the other party.

The court also declined to award pre‑judgment interest on the equalization payment.

Following a 25‑year marriage, the parties disputed spousal support quantum, child support for an adult child, ownership of a Québec cottage property, and equalization of net family property.

The court determined the separation and valuation date and addressed spousal support using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines in circumstances where the payor’s income exceeded $350,000.

Income was imputed to the recipient spouse due to limited job‑search efforts, and spousal support was fixed with a future review.

The court found unjust enrichment principles potentially supported a proprietary claim by the respondent in the cottage property but held that Ontario lacked jurisdiction to determine title to land in Québec.

A temporary stay of the equalization calculation was ordered pending resolution of the Québec ownership proceeding.