This was an Application for costs following a Summary Trial regarding property division. The two main issues at Trial were the determination of Mr. Mailloux’s income for child support purposes and the characterization and value of shares in G.M.X. Holdings Limited (“GMX”). Ms. Pring was successful on the issue of child support, while Mr. Mailloux was partially successful on the treatment of the GMX shares.

Rule 10.29 entitles the successful party to costs against the unsuccessful party, and Rule 10.33 lists factors for the Court to consider when making a costs award. Fraser J. identified the most important factors here as the degree of success of the parties, the importance of the issues and the complexity of the underlying Action.

On child support, Ms. Pring was the successful party as Mr. Mailloux’s income was imputed at a higher amount than Mr. Mailloux proposed. Justice Fraser noted that Mr. Mailloux deliberately reduced his income to avoid paying child support despite having significant assets, which was described as an aggravating factor and conduct that could not be condoned. Conversely, Mr. Mailloux was successful in establishing that the GMX shares were exempt property, which effectively reduced the matrimonial property available for division.  

The Court also found that the parties’ approach to litigation was balanced. Both agreed to proceed by Summary Trial, which avoided what would otherwise have been a lengthy and costly proceeding likely requiring expert evidence. Although both parties made offers to settle, the Judgment ultimately awarded Ms. Pring less than her own offer and less than Mr. Mailloux’s offers. Despite this, Fraser J. found that Ms. Pring did not unnecessarily delay the Action given the amount at stake and the issues’ complexity.

The Court concluded that each party achieved a similar level of success. Therefore, no costs were awarded to either party.