This Month In NS Family Law ' May 2021

• Published date: 07 June 2021
• Subject Matter: Family and Matrimonial, Family Law, Divorce
• Law Firm: Cox & Palmer
• Author: Ms Jocelyn Campbell, Michelle Axworthy, Andrea Pierce, Kelcie N. White and Dominique Perinchief

TM v CV, 2021 NSSC 148
Honorable Justice Theresa M. Forgeron

Issues: Costs

The parties participated in a divorce trial. TM sought costs in the amount of $5,000 and CV sought costs in the amount of $6,643.25. The Court determined that CV was the more successful party on two of the parties' four issues. TM was successful on one of four issues and the parties had mixed success on the fourth issue. The Court awarded $3,000 in costs to CV.

The reason for this award include: the award will do justice between the parties; CV was the more successful party; the parties' animosity towards each other increased legal fees; the litigated issues were not complicated; and trial was reduced to a half day. Costs were payable within 45 days.

Additionally, it was ordered that the parties' Corollary Relief Order reflect the clauses discussed including; the parties' communications for parenting would be facilitated through a designated app; the parties were not required to hire a transportation service to exchange parenting time; and nothing in the Order would affect a Provincial Court order.

Pike v Pike, 2021 NSSC 162
The Honourable Associate Chief Justice Lawrence I. O'Neil

Issues: Division of assets | Rental properties

The parties were married for 23 years and have two children together. Their main issue was the division of property. The parties were joint owners of four properties. Three of these properties were tourism rental properties held as assets by the wife. The fourth property was a half interest in the wife's mother's home, which the parties used as their matrimonial home. The Court determined that the rental properties were joint family ventures and were to be divided equally since they were acquired and maintained through both parties' efforts and funds. The nature of the tourism business was a family enterprise and this was unaffected by the wife registering the business in her name alone. The Court ordered that the net value of all four properties be divided equally.

TM v. RR, 2021 NSSC 156
Honorable Justice Pamela Marche

Issues: Unjust enrichment | Spousal support

TM brought a claim for unjust enrichment and sought spousal support on a compensatory and non-compensatory basis. The parties had a 16-year common-law relationship. TM's claim of unjust enrichment related to RR retaining sole ownership of a home received from TM's father and his employment pension. The Court found that there was unjust enrichment of RR given that: he received the benefit of the home and equity from TM's father with no down payment; TM's father transferred title of the home to RR based on RR's relationship with TM; TM contributed to the household bills and was even a guarantor for a mortgage on the home at one point; and RR left the relationship with an unequal distribution of wealth with no justification for doing so. The Court ordered that the equity in the home be divided equally between the parties. The Court did not order an equal division of RR's pension. His contributions to the pension had a minimal impact on the family's funds and TM make significantly lower contributions to this asset than RR.

TM was considered a spouse under the Parenting and Support Act and was awarded spousal support based on need. She relied on disability benefits and had an annual income of $15,029. RR had an income of $62,550. He was ordered to pay $1,307 per month from the parties' date of separation reviewable when RR retired. RR was also ordered to pay retroactive spousal...