Cunningham v. Cunningham
The court exercised its discretion under Civil Procedure Rule 77 and declined to award costs because success at trial was materially divided between the parties on major issues and the respondent did not provide evidence to substantiate her claim that denial of costs would impair her ability to care for the child.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2012 NSSC 134
- Parties
- Petitioner: Michael Anthony Cunningham; Respondent: Nancy Kathleen Cunningham
- Court
- Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 2 April 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Family Law (custody, Support, Property Division) / Costs Decision (post Trial)
- Outcome
- No costs awarded; each party to bear their own costs.
- Legal Topics
- Custody, Child Support, Spousal Support, Division of Marital Property, Imputation of Income, Costs
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael Anthony Cunningham
Petitioner
Nancy Kathleen Cunningham
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Family Law (custody, Support, Property Division) / Costs Decision (post Trial)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to award costs following a divided-success trial
- 2 Allocation of success between the parties
- 3 Imputation of income for child support
Ratio Decidendi
The court exercised its discretion under Civil Procedure Rule 77 and declined to award costs because success at trial was materially divided between the parties on major issues and the respondent did not provide evidence to substantiate her claim that denial of costs would impair her ability to care for the child.
Court Disposition
No costs awarded; each party to bear their own costs.
Orders
- Each party shall bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment