Ingimundson v. Meuser

Citation: Ingimundson v. Meuser Date: 19990317 1999 BCCA 0166 Docket: V03274/V03275 Registry: Victoria COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: DOROTHY MADELAINE INGIMUNDSON PETITIONER (RESPONDENT) AND: PETER ERIC MEUSER RESPONDENT (APPELLANT) AND BETWEEN: PETER ERIC MEUSER PETITIONER (APPELLANT) AND: CORRI-LAYNE MEUSER RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT) Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Finch The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury The Honourable Madam Justice Proudfoot Robert S. Gill Counsel for the Appellant Peter E. Meuser Trudi L. Brown, Q.C. Counsel for the Respondent D. Madelaine Ingimundson Christopher P. Kehler Counsel for the Respondent Corri-Layne Meuser Place and Date of Hearing Vancouver, British Columbia October 29, 1998 Place and Date of Judgment Vancouver, British Columbia December 4, 1998 Submissions on Costs Received: Place and Date of Judgment Vancouver, British Columbia March 17, 1999 Supplementary Reasons as to Costs by: The Honourable Madam Justice Proudfoot Concurred in by: The Honourable Mr. Justice Finch The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice Proudfoot: [1] Judgment was filed by this Court on 4 December 1998. The issues involved maintenance payments paid by the appellant with reference to a child of a first marriage and two children of a second marriage. [2] As result of the appeal, the appellant was successful in having the payments made to the children of the second marriage reduced to comply with the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175. He was unsuccessful with reference to the appeal concerning the payments made to the child of the first marriage. [3] No order was made as to costs and counsel were asked to make written submissions. These have now been filed and have been considered. [4] This Court is not disposed to making an order allowing costs to either party, specifically, it is more appropriate in all of the circumstances of this case for each party to bear their own costs. [5] The appellant's success was divided: one order was reduced and one remained as originally established by the trial court. The respondent, Dr. Ingimundson's income is such that paying her own costs will not necessarily create a hardship. On the other hand, Ms. Meuser's children's maintenance order was substantially reduced to comply with the Guidelines. Indeed, her income at this stage has been substantially reduced. An order of costs against her might indeed create a difficult situation. In these circumstances, as I stated earlier, each party shall bear their own costs. "The Honourable Madam Justice Proudfoot" I AGREE: "The Honourable Mr. Justice Finch" I AGREE: "The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury"