A. Feldstein

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis following a motion regarding the respondent's failure to make financial disclosure.

The court found that the respondent demonstrated a wilful disregard of his disclosure obligations, necessitating the motion.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a full indemnity basis, fixing the quantum at $20,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for ongoing non-disclosure and failure to comply with court orders.

The respondent, who resides abroad, failed to provide extensive financial disclosure regarding his foreign corporate interests, despite a consent order requiring him to do so.

Much of the disclosure provided was in Russian without certified translations, contrary to the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be wilful, tactical, and obstructionist, noting his history of ignoring previous support and property sale orders.

The motion was granted, the respondent's pleadings were struck, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The applicant brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary issues and for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for increased interim child and spousal support.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding no compelling reasons to preclude it, and severed the divorce.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the applicant to pay $5,300 in monthly child support and $14,000 in monthly spousal support based on a three-year average of his business income.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent successfully brought a motion against three non-party corporations seeking financial disclosure required by a business valuator to determine the applicant’s income.

After the motion succeeded and disclosure was ordered subject to a confidentiality agreement, the parties returned to court to resolve disputes over the confidentiality terms and costs.

Both sides sought substantial indemnity costs and relied on offers to settle under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that neither party met the burden of proving that the result was as favourable as their respective offers and therefore assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Applying the factors in Rule 24 and considering the respondent’s substantial success on the disclosure motion, the court ordered the non-parties to pay costs.

In a family law proceeding, the responding spouse brought a motion seeking disclosure from three non-party corporations connected to the applicant spouse’s business interests.

The requested documents were required by the moving party’s business valuator to assess the value of the applicant’s corporate interests and income for matrimonial property purposes.

The corporations resisted disclosure citing confidentiality concerns and sought to redact information relating to other shareholders.

The court applied Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules and held that it would be unfair for the moving party to proceed without the requested information.

The court ordered production of the outstanding documents without redactions, subject to litigation privilege and a confidentiality agreement.

Following a complex family law trial, both parties sought costs.

The court analyzed the parties' respective success at trial compared to their offers to settle.

Finding that neither party beat their offers to settle and both engaged in some unreasonable conduct, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs based on her overall success at trial, reduced by 25% due to her unreasonable positions that lengthened the trial.