William C. Fanjoy

The appellant husband brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring him to pay $8,500 per month in temporary spousal support and to obtain an income valuation.

The court granted leave to appeal on two issues: whether the motions judge erred in averaging the husband's income over three years instead of using his most recent line 150 income, and whether the motions judge erred by ordering an income valuation when neither party had requested such relief.

The court found both issues raised reasons to doubt the correctness of the order and involved matters of general importance.

A request to stay the support order pending appeal was dismissed.

Following an urgent family law motion in which the applicant successfully obtained an order requiring the respondent to release the child for return to the United Kingdom pursuant to an earlier court endorsement, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, alleging the respondent acted in bad faith by refusing to comply with the prior order.

The court held that although the respondent intentionally breached the earlier endorsement, the breach was motivated by the child’s stated wish not to return to the United Kingdom and did not constitute bad faith.

Applying the factors under Rule 24(11), the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful applicant.