Stacy Ann Coulterman

Following a 5-day family law trial regarding unjust enrichment and spousal support, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $59,083.06.

The respondent acknowledged entitlement but argued for partial recovery and significant reductions, including offsets for costs thrown away due to a prior trial adjournment.

The court awarded the applicant partial recovery costs of $18,750, applying deductions for a previously decided civil application, duplication of counsel, and a $7,000 offset for the respondent's costs thrown away.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a relocation trial where the mother (respondent) was successful in obtaining an order to relocate the child to Australia for three years.

The mother sought full indemnity costs of $36,859.84, while the father (applicant) sought an order for each party to bear their own costs.

The court awarded the mother $12,500 in costs, net of a prior $1,000 order.

The decision considered the mother's partial success, her offers to settle (one of which was reasonable but made too late, another deviated significantly from her trial position), the father's unreasonable litigation conduct, the inherent difficulty in settling relocation cases, and the father's precarious financial circumstances.

Payment of costs was deferred until the final resolution of other outstanding issues and estate litigation.

The Applicant father opposed the Respondent mother's request to relocate with their son, Ilya, to Australia for three years.

The mother, who was the sole custodial parent, sought permission for the move, citing her husband's employment contract and the family's financial and emotional well-being.

The court, applying the "best interests of the child" test from *Gordon v. Goertz*, weighed the disruption to the child's relationship with the father against the benefits of remaining with the primary caregiver and her family unit, as well as the financial stability and reduced stress for the mother's husband.

The court also considered the father's conduct in lodging a false complaint against the mother's husband.

The court granted the mother permission to relocate with the child to Australia for three years, subject to specific access and communication terms, and a requirement for a mirroring order in Australia.

The applicant sought spousal support and a monetary award for unjust enrichment arising from an 11-year common law relationship.

The court determined the dates of cohabitation and separation, finding the parties were engaged in a joint family venture.

The respondent was found to be unjustly enriched, and the applicant was awarded $26,580, representing 35% of the wealth accumulated during the relationship.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay needs-based spousal support of $1,900 per month for 11.5 years, noting the applicant's inability to work due to chronic pain and psychological issues.