Alexandra Carr

This endorsement addresses costs following a parenting motion where both the Applicant Father and Respondent Mother sought costs on different bases, claiming substantial success.

The motion concerned primary residence, parenting schedule, a therapeutic order, and the presence of a paternal grandparents' dog.

The court found that neither party achieved a result as good as or better than their offers to settle.

A significant factor in the costs decision was the parties' intransigence, particularly regarding the dog issue, and their use of surreptitious recordings.

The court emphasized that such recordings foster deceit and hinder productive discussions, generally not serving the child's best interests.

Given the mixed success, mutual intransigence, and problematic litigation conduct, the court ordered no costs to either party.

The applicant, Micheline Boutin, brought a motion to transfer and consolidate a civil proceeding commenced by the respondent, Victor Boutin, and his companies in Toronto with an existing family law proceeding in Brampton.

The Toronto proceeding alleged improvident sale of properties by the applicant, an issue previously addressed by the court as an adjustment to equalization in the family law case.

The court found that the Toronto proceeding's venue choice was unreasonable and that consolidation was desirable to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, promote expeditious resolution, and prevent inconsistent findings, given the substantial factual and legal overlap between the two cases.

This decision addresses multiple motions in a contentious family law dispute marked by the respondent husband's persistent non-compliance with financial disclosure and preservation orders.

The husband sought to vary existing preservation orders, obtain updated financial statements from the applicant wife, and release funds from a Receiver.

The wife sought orders compelling the husband's compliance with prior orders, the release of funds for property expenses, and further disclosure.

The court dismissed the husband's motion in its entirety, citing his long history of deliberate disregard for court orders, including unauthorized asset transfers and a lack of complete financial transparency.

The court granted the wife's urgent motion, ordering the husband to remit proceeds from an undisclosed property sale to the Receiver and directing the Receiver to obtain the relevant legal file.

Additionally, the court ordered the release of $180,000 from the Receiver's trust to the wife for the payment of outstanding expenses related to the matrimonial home and other jointly-owned properties.

The appellant, Wen-Chi Tsai, appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing her claim for an interest in property based on unjust enrichment and joint family venture against her former cohabitant, Lucien Dugal (now deceased, represented by his estate trustees).

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that there was no unjust enrichment or joint family venture, concluding that the parties maintained separate finances and that any contributions by the appellant were offset by benefits received.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was largely successful on a motion regarding child support and financial disclosure.

The respondent conceded the applicant's entitlement to costs, leaving only the quantum to be determined.

The court found that the respondent engaged in bad faith by persistently refusing to provide full and frank financial disclosure, thereby unnecessarily driving up litigation costs.

The applicant also beat her offer to settle.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $70,000, characterized as child support for enforcement purposes.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support and to determine the parenting schedule.

The parties agreed to a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule and that the respondent father would employ a live-in nanny during his parenting time.

The court held that the respondent's parenting time would not be suspended if the nanny was occasionally unavailable, and that the nanny's cost was a section 7 expense to be shared proportionately.

For support purposes, the court imputed income to the respondent under section 19(1)(i) of the Child Support Guidelines based on capital distributions he received from a trust, grossing up those tax-free amounts.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $327,000.

The applicant mother brought a motion to stay or consolidate a civil action commenced by her father-in-law with her family law application.

The father-in-law had advanced $1 million for the purchase of the matrimonial home, which the mother claimed was a gift and the father-in-law claimed was a loan.

The father-in-law commenced a civil action for possession of the home, while the mother sought exclusive possession and equalization in the family proceeding.

The court found that the central issue of whether the advance was a gift or a loan was common to both proceedings and ordered that the civil action be heard together with the family application to avoid inconsistent findings and save time and expense.

The respondent estate moved for an order for security for costs of the appeal and for an order permitting the release of $500,000 held in a lawyer's trust account.

The court denied security for costs under Rule 61.06(1)(a) but granted it under Rule 61.06(1)(c) for the appeal costs only ($25,000), citing the low prospect of success of the appeal, the appellant's pattern of litigation conduct, and limited financial disclosure.

The motion for the release of the funds from the trust account was dismissed, as the funds were held in place of a certificate of pending litigation and the appeal was still active.

The applicant sought $813,000 from her deceased former common-law spouse's estate, claiming an interest in the proceeds of the sale of his residential property based on unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The court found that the parties maintained separate finances and property ownership during their relationship, and the applicant did not suffer a deprivation nor did the deceased receive an enrichment.

The court dismissed the applicant's claims, finding no unjust enrichment and no joint family venture.

The applicant mother brought a summary judgment motion seeking sole custody of the parties' child, supervised access for the respondent father, and a permanent restraining order.

The parties' relationship was marked by domestic violence, and post-separation, the respondent engaged in a severe campaign of cyber harassment and threats against the applicant, her family, her lawyers, and the judiciary.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, granted summary judgment awarding sole custody to the applicant with supervised access to the respondent, and issued a permanent restraining order.

The court also ordered the respondent to return the applicant's hard drives and destroy any copies of her personal information.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order for child support.

The respondent father claimed he was unemployed and had limited income, despite living an extravagant lifestyle funded by his wealthy father (the children's grandfather) through gifts, loans, and family trusts.

The court found the father's financial disclosure inadequate and drew an adverse inference.

Applying the Bak factors, the court imputed an annual income of $463,863 to the father based on his lifestyle, corporate add-backs, and the history of generous gifts.

The father was ordered to pay table child support and a proportionate share of section 7 expenses, including a fixed annual amount for extracurricular activities.

The applicant wife commenced a divorce application in 2011, including claims for spousal support and equalization.

A temporary order in 2011 required the respondent husband to pay spousal support and restrained him from dissipating RSP funds.

The respondent ceased support payments in July 2018 due to health and employment issues, then moved to terminate or reduce support and stay arrears, and to withdraw funds from his RSP accounts.

The applicant cross-moved to dismiss the respondent's motion, for interim disbursements, and for a non-dissipation order.

The court addressed the respondent's request to reduce/stay support and the applicant's request for a non-dissipation order.

The respondent established a prima facie case for reduced support due to changed circumstances but failed the "clean hands" test by unilaterally stopping payments and transferring/withdrawing RSP funds in violation of the 2011 order.

Consequently, the respondent's motion to reduce or stay temporary spousal support was dismissed.

The applicant's cross-motion for a non-dissipation order was granted, prohibiting further dissipation of RSP funds, with specific exceptions for ongoing support payments and a partial payment of arrears.

The balance of arrears was stayed pending trial.

Following earlier reasons dismissing most applicants’ requests for interim advancement of legal expenses from a corporation, the court addressed the costs of the applications.

The respondent corporation sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $559,000 or alternatively partial indemnity costs, while the applicants argued that costs should remain in the cause of the underlying indemnity issue.

The court held that although the respondent was largely successful, payment of costs should be contingent on the outcome of the trial determining entitlement to indemnity.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs of $25,000 for a related motion and $165,000 for the applications, subject to specific allocations among applicants and exceptions for one successful applicant and another who withdrew participation.

Former directors, officers, and consultants of Look Communications Inc. sought interim advancement of their legal fees to defend against an action brought by Look alleging breach of fiduciary duty regarding bonus and equity cancellation payments.

The court held that s. 124(4) of the CBCA applies to actions brought directly by the corporation, requiring court approval for advancement.

The court found Look established a strong prima facie case of mala fides against the directors and officers, rebutting the presumption of good faith.

Advancement was denied for all applicants except one employee, Dolgonos, whose entitlement arose under an indemnity agreement not subject to s. 124(4).