Alexandre Kaufman

The Applicant brought a motion for an order appointing a social worker to complete a Voice of the Child Report.

The Master declined the order, finding it was outside a Master's jurisdiction under Rule 42 of the Family Law Rules.

The matter was transferred to a judge for determination based on the parties' written materials.

This costs endorsement arose from the non-cooperation of Tim Long Chang, the sole officer of the bankrupt Accountable Solutions Accounting Professional Corporation (ASAPC), with the trustee, Albert Gelman Inc. Mr. Chang failed to provide required financial documents and attend creditor meetings, necessitating a motion to compel his examination under oath pursuant to s. 163 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Justice Hainey initially ordered compliance and examination, with costs to be determined by the hearing judge.

Master Kaufman, Registrar in Bankruptcy, found Mr. Chang's failure to comply was due to his blaming the trustee for the bankruptcy.

The motion and examination were deemed necessary.

Costs were awarded to the trustee, payable by Mr. Chang, in the amount of $11,000, after reductions for estimated counsel fees and hours related to a separate examination.

The moving party brought an urgent motion to order the Family Responsibility Office to reduce the bi-weekly garnishment of his wages for a costs award from $393.93 to $50 per month.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish an urgent situation or demonstrate an inability to borrow funds to satisfy the debt.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff in a defamation action, relying on Rule 56.01(a) due to the plaintiff's ordinary residence outside Ontario.

The court found the plaintiff to be impecunious, demonstrating his financial inability to post security, and that his claim was not plainly devoid of merit.

Consequently, the motion for security for costs was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The court heard a costs endorsement following an urgent motion on December 8, 2015, where the respondent was largely successful.

The applicant argued against costs due to late submissions, alleged deficiencies in the respondent's Bill of Costs, and claims of the respondent misleading the court and acting in bad faith.

The respondent sought substantial recovery, citing the applicant's unreasonableness and non-participation.

The court found the respondent to be the successful party and entitled to costs, despite both parties failing to serve formal Offers to Settle.

The court awarded the respondent $5,232.50 in costs plus HST and disbursements, totaling $6,074.88, to be paid from the applicant's share of matrimonial home sale proceeds.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside an order granted on an unopposed 14B motion, arguing that the court granted the order prematurely, before the expiry of the response period under the Family Law Rules.

The court found that the original order could not stand due to procedural irregularity.

Alternatively, applying the three-part test for setting aside a default judgment, the court found the respondent moved promptly, had a plausible explanation for default, and an arguable case on the merits regarding unresolved parenting issues and the binding nature of the minutes of settlement.

The original order was set aside, and a case conference was ordered.

The applicant husband, a self-represented lawyer, sought to amend his pleadings to include claims for equalization and trust, despite potential limitation period issues and a history of delayed financial disclosure.

The respondent wife incurred additional legal fees to amend her Answer in response to these new claims.

The court, in this costs ruling, awarded the respondent $2,640.27 for costs thrown away related to the original pleadings, finding this amount reasonable.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments regarding the respondent's conduct and his request to suspend payment, emphasizing that costs are determined summarily after each step and that a legally aided client's liability is not shielded by impecuniosity when acting unreasonably.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion to withdraw its child protection application, which had been initiated due to severe parental conflict.

The court found that while the parents continued to have a highly conflicted relationship, the children were functioning well and there were no ongoing child protection concerns that warranted the society's continued involvement.

The court granted the motion to withdraw the application and issued a final order prohibiting the parents from making disparaging comments about each other in the presence of the children.

Following the settlement of a motion to change child and spousal support, both parties sought full recovery of their costs.

The moving party sought to terminate spousal support, while the responding party initially refused to acknowledge the moving party's right to a review.

The court found divided success and criticized both parties for unreasonable behavior and lack of civility.

Finding that the responding party's initial aggressive position tipped the scale slightly in the moving party's favour, the court awarded the moving party fixed costs of $2,500.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to his alleged failure to comply with multiple court orders regarding child and spousal support, financial disclosure, and business valuation.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting that such a remedy should only be used in exceptional circumstances, particularly in family law cases where ongoing obligations are determined.

Instead, the court ordered alternative remedies, including allowing the applicant to encumber the matrimonial home for litigation funding, requiring the respondent to provide a collateral mortgage to secure support arrears, and granting the applicant access to the respondent's business records.