Anamaria Pasc

This is a costs endorsement following a long motion in a family law matter.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs due to the Respondent's alleged unreasonable conduct, bad faith, and failure to comply with court orders and disclosure obligations.

The Respondent argued for divided success and that each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the Respondent's failure to comply with orders and disclosure obligations unreasonable, noting it complicated the matter, but did not find it crossed the threshold for "bad faith." Considering the Applicant's reasonable efforts to settle and the Respondent's unreasonable conduct regarding disclosure, the court awarded the Applicant $25,000 in costs, with 50% enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

The Applicant and Respondent both brought motions concerning financial issues, including spousal and child support, disclosure, and property matters.

Key issues for determination included the registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property solely owned by the Respondent, striking the Respondent's pleadings for non-disclosure, and the repayment of funds removed from joint accounts post-separation.

The court ordered the Respondent to repay $25,000 to the Applicant, ordered extensive financial disclosure from both parties (with a focus on the Respondent's corporate and personal finances), and imposed a non-dissipation order on the Respondent's solely owned property, requiring 90 days' notice of sale and deposit of proceeds into a corporate account.

The Applicant's request to strike pleadings and register a CPL was denied, though the Respondent was prohibited from bringing further financial motions without leave until disclosure compliance.

The mother brought a motion to vary a final order to address matters raised at trial but not decided, specifically regarding the enforcement of a child support overpayment and a line of credit payment for post-secondary expenses.

The court varied the order to allow for Family Responsibility Office enforcement of the overpayment if no further child support obligations arise by September 2023.

The court also addressed the costs of the trial, finding that the self-represented father engaged in bad faith by persistently failing to provide basic financial disclosure, which unduly lengthened and complicated the trial.

The father was ordered to pay $25,000 in costs to the mother.

The mother brought a Motion to Change a 2016 consent final order, seeking to terminate child support for the parties' three adult children, retroactively adjust support, and determine the sharing of post-secondary expenses.

The father repeatedly failed to provide financial disclosure and sought to withdraw his previous consent to impute his income at $300,000.

The court terminated child support for the eldest child effective June 2018 and for the twins effective June 2020.

The court imputed the father's income at $300,000 due to his failure to disclose, ordered him to pay down a line of credit for post-secondary expenses, and directed that section 7 expenses be shared 85% by the father and 15% by the mother.