Naugle v Strickland, 2023 NSSC 133

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: Naugle v Strickland , 2023 NSSC 133 Date: 20230324 Docket: SFH1201 , No. 072641 Registry: Halifax Between: Stacey Lea Naugle (Strickland) Applicant v. Shannon Garland Strickland Respondent COSTS ENDORSEMENT Judge: The Honourable Justice Cindy G. Cormier Written Submissions: November 10, 2022 Counsel: Stacey Lea Naugle (Strickland), self-represented Peter Crowther, for the Respondent By the Court: [ 1 ] The parties were married in 1999 and they separated in December 2019. Mr.

Strickland is seeking legal costs and all disbursements related to the parties’ divorce proceeding held in May 2022. 1 History of the proceeding [ 2 ] Ms. Naugle filed a Petition for Divorce on June 25, 2020, asking the Court to address the following issues: custody; access; child support; spousal support (agreement neither pay) pursuant to the Divorce Act ; and division of assets and debts pursuant to the Matrimonial Property Act . Ms. Naugle sought costs if the matter was contested. [ 3 ] Mr.

Strickland filed an Answer on July 14, 2022, seeking an order for: custody; access; child support; spousal support (if Ms. Naugle was no longer providing health coverage for him) pursuant to the Divorce Act ; and division of assets pursuant to the Matrimonial Property Act . He also sought costs. [ 4 ] Some of the issues raised by the parties were resolved prior to the divorce trial in May 2022, including but not limited to the parties’ agreement to sell the matrimonial home. I reserved jurisdiction to address matters arising from the sale of the home.

Some other issues were also resolved by agreement at the commencement of the ½ day divorce hearing. [ 5 ] In July 2022, following the hearing held in May 2022, Mr. Strickland sought to

schedule a court conference to address issues which arose relating to the parties’ agreement to sell the matrimonial home. A court conference was scheduled in September 2022. The parties’ home sold in August 2022, and at the conference in September 2022 the parties agreed to attend a settlement conference to negotiate outstanding issues. [ 6 ] The parties attended settlement conferences on October 13 and 18, 2022. They came to an agreement regarding the division of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home and how to account for the debits and credits referenced in my written decision Naugle v.

Strickland , 2022 NSSC 286 , released to the parties on October 12, 2022. [ 7 ] According to the court’s running file, at the end of the settlement conference on October 18, 2022, all issues had been addressed except “the equalization of RRSPs per paragraphs 73 and 74 of my decision Naugle, supra and costs”. 2 Ms. Naugle’s pre-trial submissions on costs

[ 8 ] On May 10, 2022, Ms. Naugle argued that because she had chosen to represent herself, there should be no costs associated with the divorce proceeding, the preparations, or the trial. She stated she would not be paying for any of Mr. Strickland’s legal costs. Ms. Naugle argued that as a self-represented litigant she could not “effectively negotiate a divorce settlement which was fair and equitable without the court’s assistance.” [ 9 ] In my written decision, Naugle, supra, in October 2022 I found that Ms. Naugle’s argument regarding costs was not supported by case law in this province or any other.

I directed both parties to file any further briefs on costs within thirty days of receipt of my decision, Naugle, supra . 3 Mr. Strickland’s written submissions on costs – filed November 10, 2022 [ 10 ] Mr Strickland argued that: (

a) He was the more successful party at trial; (

b) He made significant efforts to settle the matter (including by participating in settlement conferences/making a formal offer to settle); (

c) Ms. Naugle delayed the matter by discharging her legal counsel; (

d) Ms. Naugle failed to meet filing deadlines; and (

e) Ms. Naugle failed to abide by agreements made on the record with respect to the sale of the matrimonial home. Mr. Strickland claimed Ms. Naugle’s actions in relation to the matrimonial home resulted in “a substantial loss of value to the parties’ most valuable asset and a requirement to return to court after trial to settle that issue.” 3.1 1 st argument per Armoyan v. Armoyan 2013, NSCA 136 . [ 11 ] Mr.

Strickland stated that legal fees charged were $59,725.50, and he should be entitled “at minimum to 50% of this amount representing $29,862.50” or “more reasonably be entitled to 75% of his legal costs, in the amount of $44,794.12 in consideration of the circumstances involved in this matter.” [ 12 ] Mr. Strickland also asked that I award him full reimbursement of his disbursements of $4,941.50 + 75%. I understood Mr. Strickland was asking for disbursements of $4,941.50 plus legal costs of $44,794.12 for a total of $49,735.62 . 3.2 2 nd argument (offers to settle, Civil Procedure Rule 10.03). [ 13 ] Mr.

Strickland suggested I should apply Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rule 10.03: 10.03 A judge who determines costs may take into consideration a written offer of settlement made formally under this Rule or otherwise, unless the offer was made at a settlement conference or under an agreement that the offer would not be admissible in relation to costs. [ 14 ] Mr.

Strickland argued: This matter ought to have reasonably settled, instead it went on in excess of another full year, and in particular after the July 6, 2021 settlement proposal , with four (4), 30 minutes conferences, a Divorce trial, and two (2) days of settlement conferences. [ 15 ] Mr. Strickland claimed legal fees and disbursements accumulated after July 6, 2021 as follows: (a) $2,541.76 in soft costs disbursements (scanning, faxing, couriering etc); (b) $1,056.45 in hard cost disbursements; and (c) $28,893.50 in legal fees. In the alternative, Mr. Strickland argued that Ms.

Naugle ought to bear the entirety of his legal costs of $32,491.71 . 3.3 3 rd argument ( Tariff Amount) [ 16 ] Mr. Strickland sought costs based on Tariff A, Scale Two, or Scale Three, of the Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rules , arguing: This matter was scheduled for a ½ day hearing before Your Ladyship. However, if you factor in the 12 additional conferences, this results in an additional 18 hours of scheduled court time, or approximately 3.5 additional days of court.

It is noted that using the “Rule of Thumb” of $20,000 per day of court, the “amount involved” in this matter is $60,000 for 4 full days of court . (my emphasis) Pursuant to Tariff A of the Costs and Fees Act , this results in a cost award of $7,250 under Scale 2 (Basic) and $9,063 under Scale 3 (+25%). Additionally, $2,000 shall be added for each day of trial, so assuming the total 4 days is considered, this would be an additional

$8000 awarded, for a total cost award of $15,250.00 under Scale 2 (Basic) or $17,063.00 under Scale 3 (+ 25%). [ 17 ] As noted previously, Mr. Strickland also requested full reimbursement of his disbursements representing an additional $4,941.50. [ 18 ] Using Mr. Strickland’s calculations from paragraph 15 above, an amount of $20,000 per day x 4 days is not $60,000, but rather $80,000 . In

summary: (

a) using an amount involved of $80,000 , (between $65,001 - $90,000): (

i) Scale 2 would be $9,750 + $8000 (4 days)+disbursements of $4,941.50 = $22,691.50 ; and (ii) Scale 3 would be $12,188 + $8000 (4 days) + disbursements of $4,941.50 = $25,129.50 . (

b) using an amount involved of $60,000 , between $40,001 and $65,000 (

i) Scale 2 would be $7,250 + $6000 (3 days)+ disbursements of $4,941.50 = $18,191.50 ; and (ii) Scale 3 would be $9,063 + $6000 (3 days) +disbursements of $4.941.50 = $20,004.50 . [ 19 ] The parties appeared before me on seven (7) occasions for conferences. Considering the involvement of myself and other judges , court time was approximately fifteen (15) hours including: all conferences; all pre-trial conferences, all settlement conferences; and the ½ day divorce trial. [ 20 ] There were three days of court time in total.

If calculating all the time involved, the amount involved according to Tariff A is, $20,000 x 3 = $60,000.00 not $80,000.00. Using Scale 2 $7,250 + $6000 (3 days)+ disbursements of $4,941.50 = $18,191.50 (Scale 2) ; and Scale 3 $9,063 + $6000 (3 days) +disbursements of $4.941.50 = $20,004.50 (Scale 3) . [ 21 ] Ms. Naugle did not file a response to Mr.

Strickland’s costs submissions filed in November 2022. 4 Court appearances: [ 22 ] On October 13, 2020 (12:03-12:16 [15 minutes]) the first court conference/date assignment conference was held before me: the parties appeared with their legal counsel and agreed to attend a settlement conference. They were both directed to file any oustanding financial disclosure before the settlement conference. [ 23 ] On December 9, 2020 (14:00 – 16:59 [3 hours]) the first settlement conference was held : the parties appeared with their legal counsel and no agreement was reached.

The parties were advised that further financial disclosure would be necessary if they wished to attend a further settlement conference. I am not prepared to include this time in a costs calculation. [ 24 ] On March 10, 2021 (10:30 – 10:42 [42 minutes]) a second court conference was held before me: the parties were open to attending a further settlement conference with a different judge: (

a) Ms. Naugle requested five years of credit card statements from Mr. Strickland. Mr. Strickland expressed concern about the costs associated with providing his credit card statements. (

b) Mr. Strickland requested Ms. Naugle’s income tax returns suggesting he had requested them previously. (

c) The matter was adjourned to a follow up conference on April 8, 2021, (tentatively) to ensure all financial information was filed by both parties. [ 25 ] On April 8, 2021 (15:09 – 15:40 [31 minutes]) a third court conference was held before me: the parties advised they had resolved the issue of parenting . Ms. Naugle would have primary care of their son and Mr. Strickland would have contact with the parties’ son according to their son’s wishes. Ms. Naugle was successful with respect to the issue of parenting . (

a) Custody, including decision making and information sharing remained outstanding; (

b) Child support, prospective and retroactive table, and special or extraordinary expenses remained outstanding. Mr. Strickland was offering to pay Ms. Naugle $500 (less than Guideline ) and Ms. Naugle was requesting at least $600, but she was unclear about Mr. Strickland’s yearly income for child support; and (

c) Mr. Strickland claimed his income was approximately $67,000 ($573). He agreed to provide Ms. Naugle with his last pay stub. 5 Determination of income [ 26 ] When there is uncertainty about a payor’s income, I require, and parties are routinely asked, to file T1 General Tax and Benefit Returns as a starting point for determining a payors’ annual income for child support: (

a) In June 2020, Mr. Strickland filed his Statement of Income. He did not attach T1 General Tax and Benefit Returns. He

attached two pay stubs for 2020 and either Tax Assessments or Re-Assessments reports only, for the period between 2016 and 2019. The reports he filed suggested he earned $65,123.58 in 2019; $63,903 in 2018; $57,083 in 2017; and $62,288.00 in 2016; and (

b) It was not until February 18, 2022 , approximately three (3) months before trial in May 2022, that Mr. Strickland filed an Updated Statement of Income attaching T1 General Tax and Benefit Returns for 2021 and 2020 indicating: he earned $75,064 ($644) (RRSP income of $2,222.22) in 2021; and he earned $81,474.00 ($700) ( RRSP income of $18,750 ) in 2020. For 2019, Mr. Strickland only filed a Tax Assessment, declaring an income of $65,123.58. (

c) At the conference before me in September 2022 , after trial and before I rendered my decision, I inquired about the parties interim agreement on child support. The parties confirmed Mr. Strickland had agreed to pay $640.00 in child support (which corresponds with an income between $74,600 - $74,700).

I understood he was paying $500.00 per month in child support from March 2020 until the parties reached an out of court interim agreement for him to pay $640.00. [ 27 ] On April 8, 2021, the parties confirmed that: the issue of division of assets was still to be determined with a possible request for unequal division; spousal support sought by Mr. Strickland was an outstanding issue; and the matrimonial home needed to be appraised.

Counsel were directed to provide further financial disclosure in advance of the upcoming settlement conference or the settlement conference would be taken off the docket. [ 28 ] On May 3, 2021 (14:04 – 16:10 [2 hours and 6 minutes] ) the second settlement conference was held : the parties reported “fruitful discussions” and agreed to return for a further 1 hour continuaton of the settlement discussions on June 7, 2021. I am not prepared to include this time in a costs calculation. (

a) On June 7, 2021 (10:01 – 10:09 [8 minutes]) the 3 rd settlement conference did not proceed. There was a short appearance before the settlement conference judge only. Correspondence from Ms. Naugle’s counsel suggested counsel would continue their discussions outside the settlement conference forum. Ms. Naugle asked to convert the settlement conference to a conference. (

b) Mr. Strickland’s lawyer expressed dismay at having prepared for the settlement conference discussions, and he asked if Ms. Naugle and her counsel had reviewed their settlement conference proposal. The matter was adjourned to a conference before me on August 19, 2021. I am not prepared to include this time in a costs calculation. [ 29 ] On July 6, 2021 , Mr. Strickland submitted a formal offer to settle to Ms. Naugle. As noted above, based partly on his offer to settle, Mr.

Strickland suggested I should award him the entirety of his disbursements and the entirety of his legal fees after July 6, 2021 , for a total cost award of $32,491.71 payable by Ms. Naugle. [ 30 ] On August 19, 2021, per correspondence sent to the Court dated August 9, 2021, Ms. Naugle requested and counsel agreed to remove the pending court conference from the docket. No costs were sought at that time. [ 31 ] On October 25, 2021 (14:03 – 14:44 [41 minutes]) the 4 th pre-trial conference was held before me: Ms. Naugle was now self-represented .

The issues discussed were custody (the issue of care/parenting was not disputed per agreement April 8, 2021), more specifically, Mr. Strickland’s entitlement to disclosure re: football expenses and any future post secondary expenses, and his right to be involved in decision making was still contested. Ms. Naugle explained that this issue was the most important issue for her. [ 32 ] Other outstanding issues included: child support; property division; spousal support (medical coverage); and costs.

The parties were directed to file all relevant information prior to a further pre-trial conference scheduled in February 2022, including filing a property division chart and updated financial information for me to consider. A trial was scheduled for a half day on May 19, 2022. [ 33 ] On February 18, 2022, Mr. Strickland filed an updated Statement of Financial information including T1 General Tax and Benefit Returns for 2021 and 2020. [ 34 ] On February 28, 2022 (11:02 – 11: 39 [37 minutes]) a fifth pre-trial conference was held before me: (

a) Mr. Strickland’s counsel acknowledged receipt of Ms. Naugle’s materials at his office and stated: her materials were one week late, he had not received Ms. Naugle’s affidavit (extension to March 18), and her financial disclosure was incomplete. On that date, Mr. Strickland clarified he was no longer seeking spousal support from Ms. Naugle . (

b) Mr. Strickland advised that the appraisal of the matrimonal home was due March 17, 2022, and that the property division table he had prepared would need to be adjusted accordingly. Mr. Strickland’s counsel advised me that Mr. Strickland was not prepared to accept Ms. Naugle’s offer to sell the house for $180,000 (based on a “home value” assessment of $189,000 per October 2020). (

i) Through Mr. Strickland’s cost submissions filed in November 2022, attaching his offer to settle dated July 6, 2021, in July 2021, Mr. Strickland had suggested the matrimonial home be “valued” at $236,250 and acknowledged a mortgage of $53,889, suggesting the net value of the property, after mortgage balance, legal fees and real estate commission would be $167,776. (

c) Ms. Naugle clarified that she would not be calling her mother as a witness, but she suggested she would call the parties’ son as a witness if Mr. Strickland kept pressing for entitlement to custodial rights. I advised the parties that their son would not be testifying at trial, and that any evidence would need to be submitted to the court by other means, such as a Voice of the Child report. (

d) Mr. Strickland confirmed he would respect their son’s wishes not to share information with him , except any third party information Ms. Naugle or the parties’ child chose to provide for the purpose of determining Mr. Strickland’s proportionate share of expenses for the parties’ son’s football expenses, health expenses, or any future post-secondary expenses. Ms. Naugle continued to oppose any discussion between the parties about the parties’ son’s football activities or other activities. (

e) The parties reached an agreement with respect to Mr. Strickland’s proportionate share of

section 7 extraordinary expenses for football for their son as follows: when their son is no longer in high school Mr. Strickland will pay proportionately

up to $1000 per year ($100 per month) in extraordinary expenses for football upon receipt of proof of expense from the service provider. His consent or approval for the type of football related activity or service is not required. [ 35 ] Per Amended Conference Memorandum dated and issued on March 10, 2022, there was agreement: (

a) The parties’ son would reside primarily with Ms. Naugle; (

b) Mr. Strickland was no longer asking for decision making rights or parenting time, and the parties’ son would make any decisions related to contact with Mr. Strickland and related to the release of any information by third party service providers to his father; (

c) Spousal support (insurance plan) was no longer being sought; ... [ 36 ] On April 25, 2022 Ms. Naugle filed an affidavit and further financial disclosure including her T1 Tax and Benefit Returns for 2021 and 2020. Her income for 2021 was $72,171.89 and her income for 2020 was $71,363.24. [ 37 ] By correspondence, Mr. Strickland’s counsel advised he had received Ms. Naugle’s documents on April 27, 2022, and he requested an extension to file his documents.

The extention was subsequently discussed and granted at the pre-trial conference held on May 10, 2022. [ 38 ] May 10, 2022 (16:07 – 16:34 [27 minutes]) a sixth pre-trial conference was held before me. Mr. Strickland did not attend the conference with his lawyer . Discussions took place with Ms. Naugle regarding the sale of the matrimonial home. Mr. Strickland’s counsel suggested he would get back to Ms. Naugle about the plan discussed after he obtained instructions from his client and Ms. Naugle was willing to accept this. I asked and Mr. Strickland’s counsel agreed to contact Mr.

Strickland by telephone in an effort to confirm an agreement on the record. An agreement was reached regarding the sale of the home. [ 39 ] The parties agreed: (

a) Ms. Naugle would vacate the home by May 31, 2022; (

b) Ms. Naugle would have until June 15, 2022 do what she felt was necessary to move from the home, including any cleaning and painting the interior of the home, after which the home would be listed for sale; (

c) Mr. Strickland would have an opportunity to view the home sometime between May 31, 2022 and June 15, 2022. Ms. Naugle agreed to contact Mr. Strickland’s counsel to provide the best dates and times for Mr. Strickland to view the matrimonial home; (

d) The home would be listed for sale at $400,000.00, close to $50,000 over the appraised value. They agreed Mr. Dawood, the appraiser, was not required to attend the hearing for cross-examination; and (

e) Mr. Strickland asked and Ms. Naugle agreed $5,000.00 would be assigned to her side of the ledger for the contents of the home. [ 40 ] In preparation for trial, Mr. Strickland’s legal counsel offered to bind Ms. Naugle’s materials along with Mr. Strickland’s. I explained to Ms. Naugle what Mr. Strickland’s counsel was suggesting, what the documents might look like, and why it might be preferable to have everything organized in several volumes. Ms. Naugle agreed. Ms.

Naugle was not advised by counsel or the court that the cost might be passed on to her after trial through a claim for disbursements. [ 41 ] On May 19, 2022 (14:02 – 16:55 [2 hours 53 minutes]) a half-day divorce trial was held before me. Several issues were resolved prior to evidenc being heard. I reserved my decision on the outstanding matters. [ 42 ] On July 25, 2022 , legal counsel for Mr. Strickland wrote to me requesting I

schedule a court conference to address outstanding issues related to the parties’agreement (May 10, 2022) to sell the matrimonial home. (

a) On August 25, 2022 – the matrimonial home was sold for $250,000 . Mr. Strickland has argued that this amount represented $103,000 less than the parties would have received if the home had sold at the appraised value of $353,000 , according to the new appraisal filed in 2022. He suggested the loss in equity was attributable to Ms. Naugle’s behaviour. I would note, however, that in July 2021 per offer to settle to Ms. Naugle, Mr.

Strickland had suggested the matrimonial home was worth $236,250 with a likely net value of $167,776 . [ 43 ] On September 21, 2022 (10:36 – 11:07 [31 minutes]) a seventh court conference was held before me to address issues related to the agreement to sell the matrimonial home (May 10, 2022). (

a) Mr. Strickland suggested Ms. Naugle’s “conduct caused a substantial decrease in the value of the property when it was sold on August 25, 2022.” (

b) Ms. Naugle suggested she could not properly prepare the home for sale herself, as Mr. Strickland stopped paying child support to her in or around June 2022. Ms. Naugle indicated that Mr. Strickland had attempted to negotiate a child support payment of $500, below the Child Support Guidelines table amount, after the parties reached agreement on May 19, 2022. The parties subsequently reached agreement regarding child support owed by Mr. Strickland to Ms. Naugle for June, July, and August of 2022. Mr. Strickland agreed to pay Ms. Naugle $640 x 3 months = $1,920 . [ 44 ] Mr.

Strickland suggested he could not pay child support to Ms. Naugle as he paid all the costs of maintaining the matrimonial home after Ms. Naugle stopped paying those costs.

[ 45 ] Ms. Naugle stated that she had not received any child support pursuant to

section 7. I believed Ms. Naugle was suggesting she had submitted receipts to Mr. Strickland for their son’s football expenses and he had not paid his proportionate share of up to $100 per month, capped at $1000 per year, as agreed on in Februray 2022 and confirmed on the record on May 19, 2022. (

a) Per transcript from May 19, 2022, there was an agreement between the parties regarding prospective extraordinary expenses for football being capped at $1000 (proportionate to both incomes – per transcript page 37, line 22; page 38 line 24; and pages 39 46, with an agreement for Mr. Strickland to pay up to $100 (not $1000 which is a typographical error) per month toward any football expenses. (

b) Ms. Naugle expected Mr. Strickland to abide by their agreement.. [ 46 ] I directed Mr. Strickland’s lawyer to draft an Order reflecting any previous child support agreements reached between the parties. Mr. Strickland’s counsel stated he had the transcripts and he would draft an Order if an agreement was reflected in the transcript.

To my knowledge, no order involving child support has been submitted or issued in this proceeding . [ 47 ] On September 21, 2022, the parties agreed to attend a further settlement conference to address the disposition of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home, sold on or about August 25, 2022. I advised the parties I would try to render my written decision on all issues prior to the parties’ settlement conference scheduled for October 13, 2022.

The decision was sent by electronic message to the parties at approximately 2:00 pm on October 12, 2022. [ 48 ] October 13, 2022 (10:03 – 11:47 [1 hour and 44 minutes]) a third settlement conference was held: The parties were scheduled to discuss the division of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home. They were offered an opportunity and they also agreed to review my written decision and to expand their discussions to include a review of debits and credits.

I am not prepared to include this time when considering costs. [ 49 ] On October 18, 2022 (10:03 – 11:26 [1 hour and 23 minutes]) a 4 th settlement conference was held and according to the running file I understand an agreement was reached: (

a) each party would provide updated information about their respective RRSP holdings (history of contributions); (

b) All debits and credits included in the decision were reviewed and accounted for; (

c) Ms. Naugle was to receive a cheque for $63,491 immediately; (

d) The parties agreed Mr. Strickland’s entitlement was $107,295, that he would receive $87,295.00 immediately, and $20,000 was subject to a holdback for the costs decision ; and (

e) The equalization of RRSPs and a decision with respect to costs was outstanding with submissions due before November 12, 2022. I am not prepared to consider this time when calculating costs. [ 50 ] No Final Order was submitted on parenting or as directed on child support following my written decision provided to the parties on October 12, 2022. [ 51 ] In his costs submissions filed in November 2022, Mr. Strickland asked me to “also consider the costs related to the affidavit Mr.

Strickland filed September 14, 2022: As noted above, arguing that the matrimonial home sold on August 25, 2022 for $250,000, and this represented $103,000 less than the appraised value of $353,000.00, explaining that the net proceeds were $190,786.25 . I am not prepared to grant costs related to the affidavit relied upon at the settlement conference with another judge . [ 52 ] The parties entered into settlement conference discussions regarding the proceeds from the sale of the home and to account for other debits and credits per my decision released to the parties on October 12, 2022.

I was not privy to those discussions. [ 53 ] At the settlement conference, the parties most likely relied on Mr. Strickland’s documents filed in July and September of 2022 and Ms. Naugle’s documents filed in July and October of 2022. The contents would have been considered when the parties reached a final agreement with the settlement conference judge. I am not prepared to assess costs related to the preparation of those documents or the parties attendance at the settlement conferences on October 13 or 18, 2022 before another judge. 6 Decision: [ 54 ] Mr. Strickland argued that Ms.

Naugle should pay costs including disbursements of $49,735.62 ( Armoyan ). In the alternative, he sought all his legal costs after July 6, 2021 in the amount of $32,491.71 ( Rule 10.03 offer to settle); or in the alternative, costs per Tariff A Scale two $20,191.50 or Scale three $22,004.50 of the Civil Procedure Rules .. [ 55 ] Ms. Naugle shall pay Mr.

Strickland costs of $7,095.75 including disbursements. (Having regard to the mixed success, considering tariff A, amount involved of 1.5 days or $30,000, Scale 2 $6,250 / 2 ($3,125) + $3,000 / 2 ($1,500) + half disbursements of $2,470.75 = $7,095.75 by May 10, 2023. 7 Reasons:

7.1 Divorce [ 56 ] Finalization of the parties’ divorce was agreed. The petitioner, Ms. Naugle, testified and the elements necessary to grant a divorce were proved. 7.2 Custody and decision making [ 57 ] Ms. Naugle initially sought “sole” decision making while Mr. Naugle sought joint decision making. This was the most important issue for Ms. Naugle. The final details of an agreement on custody were negotiated on May 19, 2022, before the trial commenced on contested issues only.

The parties agreed the Order would be silent on the issue of custody, referring only to their son’s age, recognizing their son would be making many of his own decisions. [ 58 ] The parties also agreed there would be a provision specifying that with respect to Ms. Naugle travelling with their son or their son travelling alone, that Mr. Strickland’s consent for their son to travel was being dispensed with by consent. This would allow Ms. Naugle to travel with their son and/or their son to travel by himself and/or Ms.

Naugle or their son to obtain any necessary travel documents for their son including a Passport or Visa, without Mr. Strickland’s consent. [ 59 ] In his offer to settle from July 2021, Mr. Strickland suggested Ms. Naugle have sole decision-making responsibility for their son but that Ms. Naugle must inform him about all major decisions and events in their son’s life. No such provision was agreed to or ordered. The parties agreed there was no positive obligation for Ms. Naugle or their son to share any information with Mr.

Strickland about what football programs the child would participate in, except to provide proof of any football related expenses to be paid proportionately up to $100 per month or $1000 per year. [ 60 ] The parties agreed that if Ms. Naugle was asking Mr. Strickland to share proportionately in an expense, Ms. Naugle would need to provide Mr. Strickland with proof of payment of the expense. Before trial, there remained an outstanding issue regarding communication with respect to how the parties’ son could access Mr. Strickland’s health insurance benefits. Mr.

Strickland was not prepared to release his health insurance information to Ms. Naugle. [ 61 ] With respect to custody issues Ms. Naugle was more successful at trial. 7.3 Parenting [ 62 ] Parenting was another important issue for Ms. Naugle. The parties agreed the Order will reflect that the parties’ son lives primarily with Ms. Naugle. No other parenting terms were to be included. Ms. Naugle was more successful. 7.4 Child Support [ 63 ] I was told Mr. Strickland started paying child support of $500 per month as of March 2020.

In September 2022, both parties advised me that following an agreement reached outside of court, Mr. Strickland started paying child support in the amount of $640 per month. No Interim Order or Final Order for child support has ever been filed with the court. [ 64 ] Mr. Strickland did not file his T1 General Tax and Benefit Returns with the court until February 2022. Ms. Naugle disclosed her T1 General Tax and Benefit Returns to Mr. Strickland in April 2022. The parties’ annual incomes used for the purpose of determining child support payable could only be determined with any degree of confidence after Mr.

Strickland filed his T1 General Tax and Benefit Returns in February 2022 and Ms. Naugle filed hers in April 2022. [ 65 ] Neither retroactive nor prospective child support pursuant to

section 3 (the table amount) of the Guidelines , could be determined without full disclosure from Mr. Strickland. [ 66 ] It was also impossible to determine a proportionate share of retroactive or prospective child support pursuant to

section 7 (special or extraordinary expenses) of the Guidelines without proper financial disclosure from both parties. (

a) Paragraphs 18 of my written decision deals with prospective child support based on Mr. Strickland’s previous year’s employment income for 2021 of $72,064.07, attracting a payment of $623 (not his 2022 income as suggested in Mr. Strickland’s brief on costs). (

b) Further, paragraph 19 indicates that Mr. Strickland’s child support payment must be adjusted based on his 2022 income as of January 1, 2023. I have recognized that the parties agreed to use the “previous year method.” [ 67 ] In addition to the issue of inadequate disclosure for determination of the parties’ annual income for child support until 2022, there continued to be disagreement between the parties regarding the manner of payment of ongoing health insurance premiums for the parties’ son, and/or proportionate sharing of any expenses over $100, sections 7 (

b) and (

c) for the child. [ 68 ] Mr. Strickland refused to provide Ms. Naugle with a copy of his insurance benefits card for their son’s benefit. Ms. Naugle expressed frustration and preferred to have one health plan only and send receipts to Mr. Strickland which he would have to pay. Ms. Naugle had always maintained health insurance coverage for the parties’ son. Neither party would cooperate to ensure their son had easy access to the two health plans available to him. 7.5 Division of assets and debts

7.5.1 Matrimonial home [ 69 ] On May 10, 2022, following receipt of an appraisal on the home, which was not available at the court conference in February 2022, the parties agreed to list the home for sale at $400,000. I reserved jurisdiction to deal with the sale of the home, including any disbursements and the division of any equity. [ 70 ] The house was sold in August 2022, and the parties finalized the division of the proceeds of the sale and calculation of other credits and debits on October 18, 2022. 7.5.2 RRSPs [ 71 ] Ms. Naugle was not successful in proving that Mr.

Strickland had a balance of $30,000 in RRSPs in his name alone at separation. [ 72 ] Ms. Naugle was not successful in advancing her argument that certain credit card debt held in Mr. Strickland’s name only, paid out with RRSPs in his name, was not matrimonial. [ 73 ] Mr. Strickland was more successful on this issue. 7.5.3 Post separation costs [ 74 ] Ms. Naugle’s position regarding shared payment of the expenses for the matrimonial home was not reasonable. I found Ms. Naugle was responsible for the matrimonial home expenses up until the end of June 2022. [ 75 ] Mr.

Strickland was more successful on this issue. 7.5.4 Vehicles [ 76 ] There was agreement at the pre-trial on May 10, 2022 for Mr. Strickland to transfer ownership of the remaining vehicle (Kona) from Mr. Strickland to Ms. Naugle. He was also ordered to reimburse Ms. Naugle for a deductible insurance charge. [ 77 ] I found Mr. Strickland failed to maintain a matrimonial asset, the Hyundai Accent. and I ordered $11,000.00 be assigned to his side of the ledger. [ 78 ] I also ordered Mr. Strickland to reimburse Ms. Naugle for the insurance she paid while the car was in his possession. [ 79 ] Ms.

Naugle was more successful on these issues. 7.5.5 Boat [ 80 ] I split the difference between the parties’ positions. 7.6 Spousal support [ 81 ] Mr. Strickland requested Ms. Naugle continue to include him on her medical insurance plan. As of the pre-trial held on February 28, 2022, Mr. Strickland confirmed he was no longer seeking prospective spousal support (medical coverage). Mr. Strickland’s request for ongoing coverage or spousal support from Ms. Naugle was unreasonable, especially given his position that he would not provide Ms. Naugle with his insurance information for the benefit of their son. [ 82 ] Mr.

Strickland argued that Ms. Naugle had failed to continue health insurance coverage for him after December 2020 and that by cancelling coverage available to him without warning, he had incurred additional expenses. Per paragraph 88 of my decision, no evidence of any additional expenses was filed by Mr. Strickland. The retroactive award I granted to Mr. Strickland was not as important as the issue of Ms. Naugle potentially being ordered to continue to pay to have Mr.

Strickland on her health insurance plan indefinitely. 8 Determination of costs [ 83 ] As noted above, the entire proceeding including all court appearances with all judges took approximately 15 hours: with all conferences, pre-trial conferences, settlement conferences, and the ½ day trial with a portion of that time used to negotiate agreements. The approximate time before me was 15 – 7 = 8 hours . [ 84 ] Ms. Naugle was more successful in relation to the issues she clearly found most important including: parenting, custody, and child support issues.

She was also successful with respect to the Hyundai Accent, and ongoing spousal support. Mr. Strickland was more successful with respect to the RRSPs and with respect to post separation expenses related to the matrimonial home. [ 85 ] There was mixed success. [ 86 ] Mr. Strickland slowed the process of negotiation: it was his application, and he was slow to disclose his T1 General Tax and Benefit Returns, which ultimately showed he had cashed in RRSPs to pay his credit card debt.

Each time he offered to pay less than the table amount for child support; each time he refused to provide information about his health benefit plan or his health benefit card; he continued to seek prospective spousal support (until February 2022), and he did not take responsibility to maintain the parties’

matrimonial assets, and in particular payment for insurance premiums and/or car payments. [87] Ms. Naugle did not have sufficient evidence to pursue her position regarding Mr. Strickland’s RRSPs, his credit card use, orpayment thereof. It was unreasonable of her to pursue her argument. Ms. Naugle’s position regarding expenses related to thematrimonial home where she resided with the child was unreasonable. [88] Civil Procedure Rule 77.03(3) provides that “Costs of a proceeding follow the result.” Costs are in my discretion.

A decisionnot to award costs must be principled. [89] I may consider a party’s ability to pay costs in making a costs award. In M.C.Q. [sic M.Q.C.] v.

P.L.T., 2005 NSFC 27, Judge Dyer reminded me that some litigants may “consciously drag out court cases at little or no actual cost to themselves(because of public or third party funding) but at a large expense to others who must ‘pay their own way.’” If this happens, he said,“Fairness may dictate that the successful party’s recovery of costs not be thwarted by later pleas of inability to pay. [See A.E.M. v.R.G.L., 2004 BCSC 65 ]. [90] To apply Tariff A, I must know the amount involved in the case.

According to Tariff A, where there’s a substantial non-monetary issue involved, the amount involved is determined having regard to the complexity of the proceeding and the importance of theissues. [91] In 2007, Justice Lynch reviewed this general rule in Jachimowicz, 2007 NSSC 303 , at paragraph 26. There, theparenting trial took approximately thirteen days: six days of evidence from the initial trial, five days of review evidence and numerousother appearances which added approximately two more days.

She adjusted the daily equivalent amount from $15,000.00 to $20,000.00“to reflect the increased costs of litigation.” [92] As noted above, many issues were resolved by agreement prior to trial. No additional witnesses were called. [93] Civil Procedure Rule 77.02(1) states that I “may, at any time, make any order about costs as [I am] satisfied will do justicebetween the parties.” (

a) Having regard to the mixed success, considering tariff A, amount involved of 1.5 days or $30,000, Scale 2 $6,250 / 2($3,125) + $3,000 / 2 ($1,500) + half disbursements of $2,470.75 = $7,095.75 by May 10, 2023. Cormier, J.