Victor Nikitine

Following the appellant's substantial success on appeal and at trial in a family law matter, the Court of Appeal fixed costs for both proceedings.

The court noted the respondent's unreasonable conduct in prolonging the trial and failing to make or accept reasonable offers to settle.

Applying the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the appellant $275,000 for the trial and $25,000 for the appeal, allowing the award to be offset against the appellant's spousal support arrears.

The parties separated after a 24-year marriage.

At separation, the husband's textile business was valued at up to $11.25 million.

By trial, market forces had reduced its value by $8-9 million.

The trial judge ordered an equalization payment of over $4 million based on the separation-date value, finding that a market-driven decline could not be considered under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a post-separation market-driven decline in value can be considered under s. 5(6)(h).

Given the dramatic decline, the wife's trust claims, and the preservation order, equalizing the properties based on the separation date was unconscionable.

The equalization payment was reduced to $900,000.