Bonnie Oldham

The plaintiffs moved for an order requiring the defendant to post $40,000 as security for costs in relation to a counterclaim arising from mortgage enforcement and seizure of business assets.

The motion relied primarily on Rule 56.01(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure because previous costs orders against the defendant remained unpaid.

The court held that although the plaintiffs met the initial threshold for seeking security for costs, the defendant’s counterclaim substantially overlapped with his defence to the main action.

Requiring security would effectively condition the defendant’s ability to defend the claim.

The court also found that the defendant’s case was not frivolous and had a reasonable prospect of success.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking interim child and spousal support and interim disbursements for a business valuation critique in a family law proceeding.

The primary issue was the respondent’s income for temporary support purposes, where the parties proposed significantly different income figures based on competing interpretations of corporate financial information.

The court accepted the respondent’s valuator’s income determination report prepared in conformity with Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators standards and fixed the respondent’s income at $124,567 on an interim basis.

The court held that temporary support motions should avoid forensic accounting analysis where only one expert report is available.

Interim child support, mid-range spousal support, and partial interim disbursements to fund a critique report were ordered.