Bradley Thomas Granger

This decision addresses the quantum of costs following a successful trial for the applicant.

The applicant sought over $105,000 in total costs, while the respondent argued for a limit of $25,000, citing financial hardship and proportionality.

The court, applying Rule 57 factors and the principle of proportionality, awarded the applicant $40,000 for fees and $7,500 for disbursements plus HST, finding the applicant's requested amount excessive despite the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rate and the applicant's success at trial.

This family law application, initiated in 2010, proceeded to trial in 2017 to resolve outstanding issues of equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, s.7 child support expenses, and a lump sum spousal support claim.

The court made specific findings on asset valuations for equalization, resulting in an equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent.

Post-separation adjustments were also confirmed as owed by the applicant.

For child support, the respondent was ordered to contribute to specific extraordinary expenses, including music lessons, tutoring, art therapy, and certain uninsured prescription costs.

A lump sum spousal support of $12,000 was awarded to the applicant, credited against her payments to the respondent, recognizing her efforts to regain self-sufficiency after a significant back injury and surgery post-separation.

A divorce order was also granted.

This trial concerned the equalization of net family property following a marriage breakdown.

The central dispute revolved around the valuation and attribution of a Mexican vacation property, legally owned by a corporation in which the respondent held shares, but which the respondent argued the applicant had a beneficial interest in.

The court also addressed the valuation of various assets and liabilities, including pre-marriage assets and post-separation adjustments.

The court ultimately declined to impose a resulting trust on the Mexican property in favour of the applicant, attributing its full value to the respondent, and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment to the applicant.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action, which sought to set aside a land transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.

The plaintiffs alleged the transfer was made to evade an unpaid judgment debt against Said Meddaoui.

The defendants argued Said Meddaoui's liability on the judgment was extinguished by his discharge from bankruptcy in 2000, and he acquired the land after his discharge.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that Said Meddaoui's discharge released him from the debt, and the plaintiffs' claims of an agreement to pay or non-disclosure of assets were not properly pleaded or supported by evidence.