Adam Jaffer

This was a costs endorsement following two family law motions concerning release of sale proceeds held in trust to a moving non-party with an ownership interest in the property.

The court reviewed the purposes of costs under the Family Law Rules, including partial indemnification, encouragement of settlement, sanctioning inappropriate conduct, and the primary objective of dealing with cases justly.

Substantial indemnity costs were refused against two opposing parties because their positions, while unreasonable, did not amount to bad faith.

However, one respondent's changed position between the two motions justified a higher costs burden, resulting in fixed costs of $10,000 against that respondent and $7,000 jointly and severally against the other two respondents.

The moving non-party, Mohsen, brought a motion within a family law proceeding for the release of funds held in trust from the sale of a property he jointly owned with the respondent husband.

The applicant wife and respondent mother-in-law opposed the release, seeking preservation of the funds.

The court found that issue estoppel applied, as a prior order had already determined Mohsen was entitled to his share of the proceeds.

The court further held that Mohsen was not bound by a prior oral agreement to sell his share for a fixed amount, as that agreement had been repudiated, and that he was not liable for a second mortgage on the property.

The court ordered $144,185.13 to be released to Mohsen.

The applicant, Noel Paragua, sought to terminate his spousal support obligation to the respondent, Silva Lola, following his retirement, arguing it constituted a material change in circumstances.

He also sought extended terms for reimbursing a joint debt.

The respondent opposed, asserting the retirement was not involuntary and the applicant's income was not materially different.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to change, finding he failed to establish a material change in circumstances, particularly that his retirement was involuntary or that his income had materially decreased.

The court also rejected arguments for reducing the applicant's income due to "double-recovery" or imputing income to the respondent.

The applicant was ordered to reimburse the respondent for his share of a joint debt with specific payment terms.