R.H. Thomson

This is a costs endorsement following a six-day family law trial.

The court considered the parties' written submissions, the divided success on various issues (net family property, chattel valuation, spousal support income, retroactive spousal support, spousal support amount/duration), and the reasonableness of settlement offers.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $69,739.08.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success and alleged lack of proper billing advice from her former counsel.

The court deducted costs related to previous motions where costs were already awarded or denied, and further discounted the applicant's claim by 25% for time spent on an issue where the respondent was successful (health and ability to work).

The court found the respondent's settlement position "extreme" and unreasonable, making settlement impossible.

The parties separated after a 9-year relationship and 7-year marriage.

The respondent sought an unequal division of net family property, alleging the applicant depleted assets through undisclosed RRSP withdrawals.

The court dismissed this claim, finding the funds were used for family expenses and the high threshold for unconscionability was not met.

The court also resolved disputes over the valuation of chattels.

On spousal support, the court accepted the respondent's evidence of severe disability (fibromyalgia and other conditions) and awarded non-compensatory support of $1,680 per month for 7 years, based on the applicant's income of $135,000 and the respondent's income of $23,000.

A divorce was granted, and the applicant's request for a no-contact order was dismissed.

The Estate Trustees applied to pass the accounts of the estate.

Two of the deceased's sons filed notices of objection, arguing that the Estate Trustees administered the estate incompetently, improperly claimed a management fee, and improperly paid certain expenses related to the family home.

One objector also claimed ownership of two rifles in the deceased's possession.

The court found little to no fault with the estate administration and approved the accounts, with the exception of disallowing the management fee because the estate consisted primarily of real estate requiring little management.

The court also ordered the return of the two rifles to the objector.

The defendants, vendors of a farm property, brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action against them regarding an unregistered solar panel lease.

The plaintiff, who owned the solar panels, sued both the vendors and the purchaser after the purchaser denied him access to the property.

The vendors argued the purchaser had actual notice of the lease and was bound by it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial due to an insufficient evidentiary record, contradictory statements in closing documents including a statutory declaration, and the risk of inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.