The Plaintiff was granted interim spousal support following a hearing in Special Chambers. Following that Decision, the parties were unable to agree on the appropriate Costs of the Application. The Plaintiff sought enhanced Costs and the Defendant argued that the parties should bear their own Costs.

The Court noted that the successful party is entitled to Costs per Rule 10.29, subject to the Court’s general discretion. The factors the Court considers when making a Costs award are set out in Rule 10.33(1). The Court noted that the parties enjoyed mixed success on the Application, the Plaintiff was awarded less spousal support than he claimed, and the Defendant had engaged in some misconduct. The Court also noted that Plaintiff’s Calderbank offer did not explain whether the Defendant would be fully released upon acceptance.

The Court determined that each party should bear their own Costs except for a Costs Award to address the Defendant’s misconduct. The parties had agreed to a Consent Order directing that monthly salary payments be paid to the Plaintiff from a corporation the Defendant controlled. Despite the Consent Order, the Defendant suspended salary payments to the Plaintiff. The Court awarded some Costs against the Defendant for forcing the Plaintiff to return to Court to deal with the consequences of the Defendant disobeying the Consent Order.