Ackerman v. Ackerman, (2015) 473 Sask.R. 219 (QB)
| Judge | Megaw, J. |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada) |
| Case Date | April 17, 2015 |
| Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
| Citations | (2015), 473 Sask.R. 219 (QB);2015 SKQB 113 |
Ackerman v. Ackerman (2015), 473 Sask.R. 219 (QB)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.013
Angela Beth Ackerman (petitioner) v. Brett Christopher Ackerman (respondent)
(2011 DIV No. 156; 2015 SKQB 113)
Indexed As: Ackerman v. Ackerman
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
Judicial Centre of Regina
Megaw, J.
April 17, 2015.
Summary:
The parties met in 2005, began cohabiting in 2006, were married in January 2008 and separated in March 2011. Their children were born in September 2008 and September 2010. The wife petitioned for divorce. At issue was the appropriate parenting arrangement, spousal and child support and the division of property.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, in a decision reported at (2013), 424 Sask.R. 187, granted a divorce and determined the remaining issues. The wife appealed regarding the parenting arrangement and the division of property. The appeal was bifurcated so that the appeal from the parenting arrangement could be heard first.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at (2014), 442 Sask.R. 113; 616 W.A.C. 113, dismissed the appeal from the parenting arrangement.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at (2014), 451 Sask.R. 132; 628 W.A.C. 132, allowed the appeal from the division of property in part. There was no order as to costs of the appeal. The husband sought costs of the trial due to his overall success. The wife asserted that there should be no award of costs, but that the husband should be assessed some costs to penalize him for certain actions taken.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ordered that the parties were to bear their own costs.
Family Law - Topic 966
Husband and wife - Actions between husband and wife - Practice - Costs (incl. interim costs) - The trial of the parties' high conflict matrimonial proceeding lasted eight days, encompassing issues of custody and family property - The husband sought costs of the trial due to his overall success - The wife asserted that there should be no award of costs, but that the husband should be assessed some costs to penalize him for certain actions taken, including accessing the wife's email account for a period of time and reading and printing her solicitor-client privileged email - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ordered that the parties were to bear their own costs - Each party achieved a measure of success - Each party was to blame for failures to disclose - The parties were more intent on hurting one another in their zeal for success in the litigation than they were on ensuring that the children's best interests were served and the family property was preserved - The parties were equally complicit in their "raze the earth" approach - The husband's access of the wife's email account was an egregious breach of privacy that was an affront to the administration of justice - However, the wife had apparently "ramped up" the custodial conflict - The high conflict nature of this litigation and the "victory position" of the parties meant that any award of costs would do "little more than rub salt in the wounds of the vanquished" - Also, due to the wife's impecuniosity, it would upset the family property division and would have a deleterious effect on the children's parenting - See paragraphs 50 to 83.
Family Law - Topic 2189
Custody and access - Practice - Costs (incl. suit money or interim costs) - [See Family Law - Topic 966 ].
Family Law - Topic 4175
Divorce - Practice - Costs - General (incl. considerations) - The trial of the parties' high conflict matrimonial proceeding lasted eight days, encompassing issues of custody and family property - The husband sought costs of the trial due to his overall success - The wife asserted that there should be no award of costs - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench discussed the principles applicable to costs in a family law proceeding - Subject to the discretion of the court, a successful party was presumptively entitled to costs - There were no special rules for costs in family law proceedings - However, because of the discrete nature of various family law issues, the court could apportion costs according to success in a family law proceeding - The fact that there was a sufficient reason to conduct the litigation was not a basis for no award of costs - See paragraphs 23 to 37.
Family Law - Topic 4176
Divorce - Practice - Costs - Party and party costs - [See Family Law - Topic 966 ].
Family Law - Topic 4189
Divorce - Practice - Costs - Settlement offers - The trial of the parties' high conflict matrimonial proceeding lasted eight days, encompassing issues of custody and family property - The husband sought costs of the trial due to his overall success - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in determining that the parties were to bear their own costs, rejected the husband's assertion that he had achieved the "real success" - Each party had achieved a measure of success on various issues - The "without prejudice" letter filed by the father to support his argument that he had proposed a family property settlement that was more favourable than what the wife had received at trial should not have been filed and was not considered by the court - It did not qualify as a Calderbank offer - See paragraphs 38 to 49.
Practice - Topic 6931
Costs - General principles - Discretion of court - [See Family Law - Topic 4175 ].
Practice - Topic 6934
Costs - General principles - Where litigant impecunious (financial hardship) - [See Family Law - Topic 966 ].
Practice - Topic 7030
Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Where success or fault divided - [See Family Law - Topic 966 and Family Law - Topic 4189 ].
Practice - Topic 7241
Costs - Party and party costs - Offers to settle - General (incl. what constitutes and validity) - [See Family Law - Topic 4189 ].
Cases Noticed:
D.H. v. J.E.H. (2002), 215 Sask.R. 183; 2002 SKQB 39 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 28].
Davidson v. Reynolds (2002), 216 Sask.R. 269; 2002 SKQB 103, refd to. [para. 34].
J.W. v. C.W. (2009), 342 Sask.R. 140; 2009 SKQB 373, refd to. [para. 34].
S.D.W. v. C.W.W. et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. 162; 55 B.C.L.R.(4th) 101; 2006 BCSC 162, refd to. [para. 36].
Demeria v. Demeria (1991), 36 R.F.L.(3d) 366 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 47].
Calderbank v. Calderbank, [1975] 3 All E.R. 333 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].
Johnson v. Johnson (2013), 413 Sask.R. 180; 2013 SKQB 57 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 82].
Counsel:
James J. Vogel, for the petitioner;
R. Bradley Hunter, Q.C., for the respondent.
This application was heard by Megaw, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on April 17, 2015.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Digest: Gordon v Nielson, 2018 SKQB 207
...Considered: QB Rule 11-1(3)(b) QB Rule 15-25(2) Cases Considered: Adams v Adams, 2011 ABQB 306, 5 RFL (7th) 258 Ackerman v Ackerman, 2015 SKQB 113, 473 Sask R 219 B.P.E. v A.E., 2016 BCCA 335, 404 DLR (4th) 426 C.M.H. v J.R.H., 2012 NBCA 71, 354 DLR (4th) 31 Cadieu v Cadieu, [1988] 2 WWR 24......
-
GOERTZEN v. GOERTZEN,
...judicially. In family law litigation, there are no different rules with respect to the entitlement to costs. See Ackerman v Ackerman, 2015 SKQB 113, 473 Sask R 219. The considerations in determining costs are set forth at Rule 15-96 of The Queen’s Bench 15-96(1) Costs are in the disc......
-
Peterson v Peterson, 2019 SKCA 76
...of financial hardship or where an order of costs would otherwise be contrary to the best interests of the children: Ackerman v Ackerman, 2015 SKQB 113 at paras 34–36, 473 Sask R 219; see also K.R. v J.K., 2018 SKCA 35. [90] A deferential standard of review applies to appeals from costs awar......
-
GEORGE v. PENNER, 2020 SKQB 99
...would not be in the best interests of children or would wreak financial hardship. In this regard I have referred to Ackerman v Ackerman, 2015 SKQB 113 (particularly paras. 34 to 36), 473 Sask R 219; K.R. v J.K., 2018 SKCA 35 (particularly paras. 95 to 99); and Werbicki v Werbicki, 2009 SKQB......
-
GOERTZEN v. GOERTZEN,
...judicially. In family law litigation, there are no different rules with respect to the entitlement to costs. See Ackerman v Ackerman, 2015 SKQB 113, 473 Sask R 219. The considerations in determining costs are set forth at Rule 15-96 of The Queen’s Bench 15-96(1) Costs are in the disc......
-
Peterson v Peterson, 2019 SKCA 76
...of financial hardship or where an order of costs would otherwise be contrary to the best interests of the children: Ackerman v Ackerman, 2015 SKQB 113 at paras 34–36, 473 Sask R 219; see also K.R. v J.K., 2018 SKCA 35. [90] A deferential standard of review applies to appeals from costs awar......
-
GEORGE v. PENNER, 2020 SKQB 99
...would not be in the best interests of children or would wreak financial hardship. In this regard I have referred to Ackerman v Ackerman, 2015 SKQB 113 (particularly paras. 34 to 36), 473 Sask R 219; K.R. v J.K., 2018 SKCA 35 (particularly paras. 95 to 99); and Werbicki v Werbicki, 2009 SKQB......
-
T.W. v. S.L., 2017 SKQB 45
...the court’s discretion must take into account a number of factors, including those factors listed in Rule 11-4(4): Ackerman v Ackerman, 2015 SKQB 113, 473 Sask R 219. [97] In this case, S. was successful on the main issue of whether a child support obligation was owed, but T. was successful......
-
Digest: Gordon v Nielson, 2018 SKQB 207
...Considered: QB Rule 11-1(3)(b) QB Rule 15-25(2) Cases Considered: Adams v Adams, 2011 ABQB 306, 5 RFL (7th) 258 Ackerman v Ackerman, 2015 SKQB 113, 473 Sask R 219 B.P.E. v A.E., 2016 BCCA 335, 404 DLR (4th) 426 C.M.H. v J.R.H., 2012 NBCA 71, 354 DLR (4th) 31 Cadieu v Cadieu, [1988] 2 WWR 24......