Niles v. Munro, (2011) 300 N.S.R.(2d) 199 (SC)

• Judge: O'Neil, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: February 14, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2011), 300 N.S.R.(2d) 199 (SC);2011 NSSC 57

Niles v. Munro (2011), 300 N.S.R.(2d) 199 (SC);

    950 A.P.R. 199

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.059

Michele Debra Niles (petitioner) v. David Alexander Munro (respondent)

(1201-56024; 2011 NSSC 57)

Indexed As: Niles v. Munro

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Family Division

O'Neil, J.

February 14, 2011.

Summary:

Spouses divorced in 2001 after 19 years' marriage and two children, now aged 19 and 23. At issue, on a support variation application, was (1) the court's jurisdiction to deal with a claim for retroactive support and s. 7 Federal Child Support Guidelines expenses for the oldest child and (2) the period, if any, for which retroactive support was payable for the youngest child.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, in a judgment reported (2009), 283 N.S.R.(2d) 322; 900 A.P.R. 322, dismissed the claim for retroactive support and s. 7 expenses for the oldest child, as he was no longer a "child of the marriage" at the time of the wife's application. The court awarded retroactive support for the youngest child to reflect the husband's actual income. The husband sought costs.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, awarded the husband costs totalling $8,250 payable at a rate of $250 per month.

Family Law - Topic 966

Husband and wife - Actions between husband and wife - Practice - Costs - Spouses divorced in 2001 after 19 years' marriage and two children, now aged 19 and 23 - The wife claimed retroactive support and s. 7 Federal Child Support Guidelines expenses for the oldest child and retroactive support was payable for the youngest child - The claim for retroactive support and s. 7 expenses for the oldest child was dismissed, as he was no longer a "child of the marriage" at the time of the wife's application - Retroactive support for the youngest child was awarded to reflect the husband's actual income - The husband sought costs - There were two decisions: an oral decision following a half day hearing and a second decision following another half day hearing - The initial hearing was adjourned due to the wife's failure to file in a timely manner and the husband had made settlement offers more favourable than the result achieved by the wife - The husband's legal fees totalled $29,513.57 - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, held that the amount involved was less than $65,000 and scale 2 (basic) should be applied, resulting in costs of $7,250 - To that was added costs of $1,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST attributed to the adjourned hearing - The result was costs totalling $8,250, payable at the rate of $250 per month.

Family Law - Topic 4175

Divorce - Practice - Costs - General (incl. considerations) - [See Family Law - Topic 966 ].

Cases Noticed:

Tamlyn v. Wilcox (2010), 295 N.S.R.(2d) 186; 935 A.P.R. 186; 2010 NSSC 363 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].

N.D.L. v. M.S.L. (2010), 289 N.S.R.(2d) 303; 916 A.P.R. 303; 2010 NSSC 159 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 11].

Shurson v. Shurson, [2007] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 42; 2007 NSSC 101 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 13].

Conrad v. Bremner (2006), 242 N.S.R.(2d) 330; 770 A.P.R. 330; 2006 NSSC 99 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 13].

Gardiner v. Gardiner (2007), 259 N.S.R.(2d) 240; 828 A.P.R. 240; 2007 NSSC 282, refd to. [para. 13].

Grant v. Grant (2002), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 173; 627 A.P.R. 173 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 13].

Pelrine v. Pelrine (2007), 255 N.S.R.(2d) 53; 814 A.P.R. 53; 2007 NSSC 123 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 20].

Kennedy-Dowell v. Dowell (2002), 209 N.S.R.(2d) 392; 656 A.P.R. 392 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 20].

MacLean v. MacLean (2001), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 34; 627 A.P.R. 34 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Hanakowski v. Hanakowski, [2002] N.S.J. No. 272 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 22].

Guillena v. Guillena (2003), 212 N.S.R.(2d) 101; 665 A.P.R. 101 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].

Ghosn v. Ghosn (2006), 246 N.S.R.(2d) 38; 780 A.P.R. 38 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Robar v. Arseneau (2010), 292 N.S.R.(2d) 309; 925 A.P.R. 309; 2010 NSSC 175, refd to. [para. 26].

Provost v. Marsden (2009), 286 N.S.R.(2d) 138; 909 A.P.R. 138; 2009 NSSC 365, refd to. [para. 27].

Provost v. Marsden (2010), 296 N.S.R.(2d) 176; 940 A.P.R. 176; 2010 NSSC 423, refd to. [para. 27].

A.R. v. G.R., [2010] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 247; 2010 NSSC 377, refd to. [para. 28].

Counsel:

Michele D. Niles, self-represented;

Shawn M. O'Hara, for the respondent.

This matter was heard by way of written submissions at Halifax, N.S., before O'Neil, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Family Division, who delivered the following judgment on February 14, 2011.