Andrea R. Camacho

The applicant sought costs for two motions: a recusal motion brought by the respondent and a motion to strike brought by the applicant.

The applicant was successful on both motions.

The court rejected the applicant's claim for full indemnity costs, noting that the Family Law Rules do not provide for a general approach of close to full recovery.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs, fixing the amount at $40,930.53 based on reasonableness and proportionality.

Following a motion for interim spousal support where the applicant was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court noted that the respondent unnecessarily complicated the proceedings by conducting a forensic audit of the applicant's finances, which drove up costs.

Although the respondent had made offers to settle, they included conditions the applicant could not accept.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $85,000.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The respondent opposed, arguing the parties had reached an agreement to waive support in exchange for 49.9% of his successful software company.

The court found the applicant had a prima facie claim for support, as the alleged agreement was unlikely to meet the Miglin threshold.

To address the respondent's temporarily reduced income and the ongoing litigation costs, the court ordered the respondent to release undisputed corporate dividends and pay $300,000 in lump sum interim spousal support.

The applicant was substantially successful on a motion to change and obtained a better result than his offer to settle.

The court resolved an outstanding issue regarding life insurance on consent, ordering the applicant to maintain an $18,000 policy until January 2018.

On the issue of costs, the court noted the applicant utilized both senior and junior counsel but failed to provide actual time dockets, raising concerns about duplication of effort.

Applying the principle of proportionality and considering the respondent's reasonable expectations, the court fixed the applicant's costs at $27,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, which may be credited against his spousal support arrears.

The applicant mother brought a motion to compel the respondent father and a non-party corporation to produce extensive financial documents and answer undertakings to determine the father's income for spousal support purposes.

The father brought a cross-motion to compel the mother to answer undertakings.

The court ordered extensive third-party corporate disclosure, finding that the father's complex corporate and trust structures necessitated broader production to fairly determine his income.

Both parties were also ordered to answer specific undertakings and refusals.