Anita Volikis

The wife brought a motion seeking the release of $500,000 from the net proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home to pay her legal and accounting fees.

The husband opposed the release and brought a cross-motion seeking to dismiss the wife's motion for alleged non-compliance with prior orders, requesting alternate security for his equalization claim, and seeking further disclosure and costs thrown away for cancelled questioning.

The court found the wife was not in breach of prior orders and granted the release of $500,000, noting the husband had already received a significant advance from the proceeds.

The court declined to order the wife to pledge her RRSP due to tax consequences but issued a general preservation order over her assets.

The court also ordered the wife to provide further disclosure, fixed dates for questioning, and awarded the husband $2,000 for costs thrown away.

The applicant husband brought a motion for interim spousal support and shared use of a Florida condominium following the breakdown of a 31-year marriage.

The core dispute involved determining the respondent wife's income from her corporation.

The court imputed the wife's income at $720,000 and the husband's at $180,000, ordering the wife to pay $20,000 per month in interim spousal support.

The husband's request for shared use of the Florida condominium was dismissed as he had alternative housing and timeshares available.

The applicant brought a motion seeking orders against the respondent for consistent and significant non-disclosure, including a monetary penalty and striking pleadings.

The court found the respondent in breach of a consent order and prior disclosure obligations, which had been outstanding for approximately four years.

The court held that it has jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules, specifically Rule 1(8), to impose a monetary penalty for non-compliance with disclosure orders, even without a finding of contempt, in exceptional and egregious circumstances to enforce its process and deter future breaches.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with outstanding obligations by a specified date, failing which a daily monetary penalty of $500 would accrue to the applicant.

The applicant was also granted liberty to renew the motion to strike the respondent's pleadings if non-compliance continued.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a motion to change relating to section 7 expenses under a consent order.

The applicant sought to reduce his child support obligations but failed to comply with three prior court orders and owed substantial arrears in child support and costs.

The court dismissed the motion to change with costs at an early stage under the Family Law Rules.

The costs decision addresses the applicant's claim of inability to pay and applies the three primary objectives of costs orders: indemnification, settlement encouragement, and sanctioning of inappropriate behaviour.