Sean W. Plat

The court considered whether a domestic agreement between Delby Saulnier and Kelly Postma should be set aside for lack of disclosure and other reasons, and determined the parties' respective entitlements regarding a jointly occupied farmhouse property after their separation.

The court upheld the agreement, found that Saulnier was entitled to a monetary payment for his share of the increased equity in the farmhouse, and addressed claims for damages for conversion, spoliation, and intrusion upon seclusion.

The mother brought a motion seeking a section 30 assessment of the children and a right of first refusal during the father's parenting time.

The parties continued to live in the same house post-separation and engaged in high-conflict monitoring of each other.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a right of first refusal would exacerbate conflict and that a section 30 assessment was overly intrusive and disproportionate.

The court maintained the existing 2/2/3 parenting schedule and ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer on consent.

Katherine sought full indemnity costs after a successful spousal support trial.

Christopher argued for no costs or a fraction.

The court found Katherine "far more successful" on key issues and her offers more reasonable, while Christopher's behavior was "far less reasonable" including unilaterally withdrawing from a joint retainer, tardy disclosure, and deliberately disobeying a temporary support order.

The court clarified that the recent amendment to Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, allowing a trial judge to award costs for prior steps even if not reserved, is procedural and applies retroactively.

However, the judge deferred the final determination of costs for prior conferences, requesting further submissions from both parties.

Following motions in a family law proceeding, the court determined the issue of costs pursuant to the Family Law Rules.

The applicant had been the more successful party, obtaining child and spousal support on a without prejudice basis and defeating the respondent’s claim for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The respondent argued that costs should be reserved or that each party bear their own costs because the support order was made without prejudice.

The court rejected that position, emphasizing that Rule 24(10) requires costs to be determined at each step of a proceeding.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful party, with reductions to the claimed hourly rate, travel time, and attendance time.