A. Sean Jones

Following a successful motion and trial of issues to enforce a settlement agreement, the applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis totaling over $95,000.

The respondent argued for a set-off or a lower award due to her modest financial resources.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, noting that full indemnity was not warranted and considering proportionality and the respondent's ability to pay.

The respondent was ordered to pay a global amount of $40,221.22 in monthly installments over three years.

This costs endorsement followed a motion by the applicant seeking judgment to enforce a settlement contract in a family law proceeding.

Although the applicant succeeded on the disclosure issue, the court ordered a trial of an issue on whether the settlement was valid and enforceable.

The court held that neither side had yet achieved a result justifying an immediate costs award and emphasized the moving party had acted reasonably in bringing the motion on the basis of signed minutes of settlement and an advice certificate.

Costs of the motion were reserved until after trial.

The applicant sought court assistance to compel financial disclosure from corporations associated with the respondent within the context of a family law arbitration.

The arbitrator had previously ordered disclosure but concluded the respondent had not fully complied and lacked jurisdiction to compel production from non-party corporations.

The court ordered the respondents to produce the information listed in an exhibit and required the applicant to execute a confidentiality agreement covering all disclosed materials.

The court upheld the arbitrator’s direction that the respondent bear the costs of locating and compiling disclosure while the applicant would pay photocopying at the Legal Aid rate.

The applicant was found substantially successful and awarded partial costs of the motion.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment setting aside minutes of settlement and ordering him to pay spousal support.

The parties had signed a settlement in 1998 where the respondent wife accepted a lump sum and waived future support, believing the appellant was unemployed.

The trial judge found the appellant had failed to disclose substantial severance and contract income, taking advantage of the respondent's mental health vulnerability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the settlement was unconscionable and vitiated by the appellant's non-disclosure.