The applicant sought an interim costs order under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules requiring the respondent to advance funds for anticipated questioning and litigation expenses relating to spousal support and property equalization claims.
The court emphasized that the discretion to award interim costs must be exercised to ensure procedural fairness and a level playing field.
The court found the applicant failed to demonstrate financial need or provide sufficient evidence of anticipated legal expenses.
Evidence showed the applicant was receiving spousal support, benefitting from a partner’s contribution to household expenses, had taken a recent vacation, and had chosen to return to school instead of seeking full-time employment.
In the absence of detailed cost estimates or a bill of costs, the court declined to order interim costs but left open the possibility of a renewed motion with fuller evidence.
