Thomas C. Dart

Following a motion for spousal support where the applicant was successful, both parties sought costs.

The court reviewed the parties' respective offers to settle and conduct.

The court found the applicant was successful on the main issue of spousal support and that the respondent's offer to settle was not bettered.

Despite some unreasonable conduct by both parties, the applicant was awarded costs of $3,000 on a partial recovery basis.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support, while the respondent sought temporary child support and primary residence of their three children.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for non-compensatory spousal support due to the economic disadvantage arising from the marriage breakdown and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $450 per month in temporary spousal support, and the applicant to pay $748 per month in temporary child support plus 37.3% of section 7 expenses.

The respondent brought a motion to vary a prior order by reducing child support, while the applicant sought an increase based on reassessment of the respondent’s income.

The court addressed admissibility of expert accounting reports, struck a portion of the applicant’s affidavit lacking a proper source of information, and interpreted a prior order providing for “without prejudice differential” support pending determination of actual incomes.

After reviewing competing expert reports, the court accepted the respondent’s expert evidence regarding corporate losses and determined the respondent’s guideline incomes for 2012, 2013, and 2014.

The court also found the applicant intentionally underemployed and imputed income to her.

Child support was recalculated on a set‑off basis due to the shared parenting arrangement.

In a family law motion, the respondent sought removal of the applicant's solicitor after the respondent's former counsel joined that solicitor's firm.

Applying the conflict principles from MacDonald Estate and McKercher, the court accepted that an ethical wall had been established but held that the broader concern was whether a reasonably informed member of the public would be satisfied that confidential information would not be used.

In the family law context, where clients disclose highly personal strategic information, the court found that the appearance of conflict remained.

The motion was granted and the solicitor was removed from the record.

Costs of $6,000 were awarded to the moving party.