Allan Papernick

The respondent husband sought costs following a trial on equalization where the applicant wife did not appear.

The husband claimed over $140,000 on a full indemnity basis, arguing the wife's conduct amounted to bad faith due to repeated delays, late adjournments, and failure to provide contact information.

The court agreed the wife's conduct was unreasonable and in bad faith, justifying full indemnity costs.

However, noting concerns about proportionality given the husband's share of the house proceeds was only approximately $115,000, the court fixed costs at $55,000 payable forthwith.

A separated married couple disputed custody, parenting time, child support, and property issues relating to two children with significant special needs.

The court considered the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act and rejected joint custody due to the parents’ inability to communicate and cooperate.

The court granted the applicant primary decision‑making authority with liberal parenting time to the respondent.

Income was imputed to the respondent due to inadequate financial disclosure and intentional underemployment, resulting in guideline child support and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The court also recognized the applicant’s 50 percent beneficial interest in the matrimonial home under the presumption of resulting trust and declared a mortgage against a jointly owned cottage unsupported by evidence.