Andrea Ruth 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.

Following the dismissal of the moving party's motion for leave to appeal, the responding party sought full indemnity costs of $30,618.11.

The court found that the moving party acted unreasonably by overly complicating the motion and filing extensive materials.

However, the court agreed with the moving party that the cost of retaining senior litigation counsel was not entirely reasonable to pass on.

The court fixed costs payable to the responding party at $19,000, representing an amount between partial and substantial indemnity.

The respondent husband sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that struck portions of his voluminous affidavit material and set parameters for an upcoming interim spousal support motion.

The motion judge had restricted the evidence to whether the applicant wife could establish a prima facie case that an alleged separation agreement was unenforceable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's case management intervention, which was deemed necessary to maintain proportionality given the excessive material filed.

The applicant brought a motion to strike evidence from the respondent's affidavit, alleging mediation/settlement privilege and non-compliance with the Family Law Rules.

The evidence related to an alleged separation agreement concerning spousal support waiver and share division.

The court ruled that the existence and enforceability of such an agreement are trial issues, not to be determined on interim motions for spousal support or disclosure.

The respondent was ordered to remove privileged and non-compliant materials and to confine his evidence for the substantive motions to whether the applicant has established a prima facie case that no enforceable agreement exists.

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.