) ) Cheryl Ann Wadsworth Applicant – v. –, 2013 ONSC 1568

CITATION : Wadsworth v. Wadsworth 2013 ONSC 1568 COURT FILE NO.: 25/08 DATE: 2013-03-13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ) ) Cheryl Ann Wadsworth Applicant – and – Peter Garth Wadsworth Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) M. Kenneth Douglas, for the Applicant Bruce A. MacDonald, for the Respondent ) ) ) THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE J. R.

HENDERSON E N D O R S E M E N T [ 1 ] This is my decision regarding the issues of costs and pre-judgment interest that arise out of my written decision dated February 6, 2013. [ 2 ] Regarding costs, I note that the respondent, Peter Wadsworth, commenced this action in order to compel the applicant, Cheryl Wadsworth, to comply with the existing order that required the applicant to arrange for a valuation and division of her pension, and also to compel the applicant to transfer the matrimonial home to the respondent for a certain sum of money. [ 3 ] In response, the applicant agreed to transfer the matrimonial home to the respondent, but the parties disagreed as to the proper sum to be paid to the applicant for her interest in the home.

The applicant also raised some issues with respect to s. 7 expenses payable by the respondent. [ 4 ] I find that the respondent was successful on the pension issue as that issue was resolved in his favour on the eve of trial. I also find that the applicant was successful on most of the s. 7 issues. [ 5 ] The issue of the proper amount of money to be paid to the applicant for her interest in the matrimonial home was by far the most significant issue, and took up most of the court time at trial. On that issue, neither party was successful.

In my written decision I found that the respondent was to pay to the applicant the sum of $31,403 for her interest in the home.

That figure was in between the two figures suggested by the parties at trial. [ 6 ] Moreover, there was no offer to settle from either party that would engage the provisions of Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules . [ 7 ] Therefore, I find that there should be no costs to either party. [ 8 ] Regarding the applicant’s claim for pre-judgment interest on the money payable to the applicant for her interest in the matrimonial home, in my view there should be no such interest payable. [ 9 ] The evidence shows that the value of the applicant’s interest in the matrimonial home increased after the parties separated in 2008 primarily because the respondent paid the mortgage, utilities, and taxes, and maintained and improved the matrimonial home from the date of separation until the present time.

Therefore, any interest that might have accrued during that time on any amount payable for the applicant’s equity in the home should be set off against the increase in the applicant’s equity in the home caused by the respondent’s contributions to the home. [ 10 ] Therefore, it is ordered that there will be no pre-judgment interest payable on the money owed by the respondent to the applicant for her interest in the home. Post-judgment interest on the sum of $31,403 will be payable at the rate of two percent per annum. [10]

Henderson, J. Released: March 13, 2013 CITATION : Wadsworth v. Wadsworth 2013 ONSC 1568 COURT FILE NO.: 25/08 DATE: 2013-03-13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Cheryl Ann Wadsworth Applicant – and – Peter Garth Wadsworth Respondent e n d o r s e m e n t Henderson, J.

Released: March 13, 2013