Russell Ian Moreland Alexander

The applicant sought to reopen the evidence of a family law trial, which had concluded over a year prior, to introduce an affidavit sworn by the respondent in an unrelated family law matter.

The applicant argued this new evidence proved the respondent deliberately misled the court regarding property ownership and his ability to work.

The court applied the two-prong test for admitting new evidence, requiring reasonable diligence and a probable change in result.

The court found no deliberate misleading or fraud and determined that the new evidence, which largely concerned collateral facts, would not have changed the trial's outcome.

The motion to reopen the evidence was dismissed.

The applicant sought to vary his child support obligations, arguing for a reduction based on his corporate income and losses.

The respondent sought to increase the applicant's income by adding back various corporate deductions and imputing hypothetical interest and tip income.

The court largely rejected the respondent's proposed additions for automotive expenses, amortization, non-arm's length salary, and hypothetical interest, finding the forensic accountant's testimony problematic.

However, the court agreed to add back child support improperly deducted as a company expense and grossed-up tip income.

The court calculated the applicant's income for child support purposes for several periods, resulting in adjusted monthly payments, and maintained the 50/50 split for Section 7 expenses as per the original agreement.

Following a family law motion concerning enforcement and variation of interim orders relating to payment of household utilities and a business valuation, both parties sought costs.

The court found the respondent had been primarily successful because the applicant's motion to vary the orders was dismissed and enforcement of the existing orders was granted.

Although the respondent requested full indemnity costs based on alleged bad faith, the court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not rising to bad faith under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Considering divided success on the issue of the sale of the matrimonial home and the parties’ conduct, the court awarded reduced costs.

Costs of $8,000 were ordered payable from the respondent’s share of the proceeds upon the sale of the matrimonial home.