Stacy Michelle MacCormac

Cross-motions in a family law proceeding addressed interim financial arrangements, support obligations, and the disposition of the matrimonial home.

The court found it untenable for the respondent spouse to remain in the home due to the financial burden placed on the applicant and the parties’ overall debt situation.

A temporary order was issued directing the immediate listing and sale of the matrimonial home, establishing procedures for showings and offers, allocating responsibility for certain household expenses, and setting temporary child support and conditional spousal support.

The order also addressed division of household contents, treatment of joint debts, and restrictions on mobility and further custody motions pending the Office of the Children’s Lawyer report.

The Divisional Court determined costs following an appeal that increased the appellant's equalization payment by approximately $50,000.

The appellant was awarded $15,000 in costs for the appeal due to her partial success.

However, the court declined to vary the trial judge's $70,000 costs award against the appellant, noting that the respondent's pre-trial offer to settle remained higher than the final equalization amount.

The court also clarified that Family Law Rule 24(10) does not preclude a trial judge from awarding costs for pre-trial steps that do not require judicial intervention.

The appellant wife appealed a trial decision regarding the equalization of net family properties.

The primary issue was whether the trial judge erred in law by failing to deduct a line of credit, secured by a collateral mortgage on the matrimonial home, from the respondent husband's date of marriage assets.

The Divisional Court held that under the Family Law Act and the test in Collier v. Torbar, a debt must be incurred to acquire, maintain, or improve the matrimonial home to be exempt from deduction.

The court adjusted the equalization payment to account for this error, as well as omitted assets including a vehicle and a generator, increasing the payment owed to the appellant to $96,462.41.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order regarding spousal support.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge failed to appreciate uncontested evidence that the appellant's income had been reduced by about fifty percent and failed to consult the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG).

Given the lack of reasons, the court owed little deference to the trial judge.

The appeal was allowed, and spousal support was fixed at $525 per month based on the SSAG.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an interim preservation order regarding the matrimonial home pending appeal, the respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondent's offer to settle was more favourable than the judgment and that the applicant's conduct unnecessarily increased costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $6,500 on a substantial indemnity basis, payable within 30 days.