Alyssa Warias

Following a nine-day hybrid trial involving parenting and financial issues, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $301,514.81 alleging bad faith by the respondent.

The respondent argued for divided success and sought partial recovery costs.

The court found divided success on parenting issues but overall success for the applicant on financial issues.

The court held that neither party's conduct met the threshold for bad faith, noting unreasonable behaviour by both.

Considering the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including offers to settle and the respondent's financial circumstances, the court fixed a reduced global costs award of $110,000 to the applicant.

The court considered a motion by the Applicant, Crystel Figaro, to compel financial disclosure from the Respondent, Shawn Figaro, and to adjourn a scheduled hearing regarding the validity of a separation agreement.

The Applicant argued that the agreement was entered into without full financial disclosure or independent legal advice.

The court granted the motion, emphasizing the necessity of full disclosure in family law and finding that the Respondent had failed to provide adequate information.

The hearing was adjourned, and the Respondent was ordered to provide full answers to the Applicant’s request for information.

The applicant, Virginia Louise Bustin, sought temporary spousal support from the respondent, Rick Hendricus Vandenberg, despite a prior separation agreement waiving such support.

The court found that there were triable issues as to the validity and enforceability of the spousal support waiver, including concerns about power imbalance, lack of financial disclosure, and lack of legal advice.

The court exercised its discretion to order temporary spousal support of $5,300 per month, finding that the applicant had established a prima facie entitlement on both compensatory and needs-based grounds, and that the respondent had the ability to pay.

The court declined to order retroactive support at this stage, leaving that issue for trial.

The father brought a successful motion for summer parenting time with the parties' child, successfully opposing the mother's request that the time be supervised.

The father sought costs of $11,643 for the motion.

The court found the father was the more successful party and acted reasonably, while the mother was initially unreasonable.

Considering the mother's limited income and the excessive time claimed by the father's counsel, the court ordered the mother to pay costs fixed at $3,955.