Aston

The defendants brought a motion to examine the plaintiff's former solicitor for discovery and for production of documents from her former law firm to support a Limitations Act defence.

The defendants sought to prove the plaintiff knew of his entitlement under his grandfather's will before February 28, 2016.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that the defendants had not first made a diligent effort to obtain the targeted information from TD Canada Trust, the entity that administered the trust funds, as required by Rule 31.10(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion judge previously awarded costs against the respondent and, on his own initiative, raised the issue of whether the respondent's lawyer should be personally liable for those costs under Family Law Rule 24(9).

The matter was adjourned to a different judge.

The court found that while the lawyer's conduct met the threshold of running up costs without reasonable cause due to incompetence, there was no bad faith or unethical conduct.

Exercising extreme caution, the court declined to order costs against the lawyer personally.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent husband brought a motion to remove the applicant wife's solicitor of record, alleging the solicitor knowingly commissioned a false affidavit and backdated correspondence.

Following cross-examination of the solicitor and his assistant, the court found that the assistant had backdated the letter and lied in her affidavit without the solicitor's knowledge.

The motion to remove the solicitor was dismissed.

The court awarded $5,000 in costs to the applicant, noting the respondent's bad faith in seeking a Law Society investigation and barring the solicitor from future cases.

The applicant sought permission to add six witnesses to the trial list shortly before the scheduled family law trial, despite an order from the trial management conference restricting witnesses to those listed.

The proposed witnesses were intended to testify about the applicant's physical and emotional condition following separation.

The court refused permission, noting the lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay, the potential prejudice to the respondent, and the lack of detailed 'will say' statements, while leaving the ultimate evidentiary rulings to the trial judge.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 19-year marriage.

The court determined issues of equalization, child support, and spousal support.

The court found the applicant had hidden assets and imputed income to her due to undisclosed cash from a business.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $139,690.81.

Retrospective child support was offset, resulting in the applicant owing the respondent $1,191.85, while the respondent was ordered to pay ongoing child support and spousal support.