Brian Korb

Following several family law motions addressing delay, disclosure, and spousal support, the court determined costs between the parties.

One respondent’s motion to dismiss for delay and reduce spousal support was dismissed, while added respondents successfully obtained dismissal of the applicant’s claims against them for delay.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that costs generally follow the event and awarded partial indemnity costs accordingly.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs against one respondent for his unsuccessful motion, while the added respondents were awarded their costs for both the dismissal motion and a prior 14B motion.

The court reduced the amount sought for the 14B motion for proportionality.

Multiple respondents brought motions to dismiss a family law application for delay.

The applicant had commenced claims including trust claims against extended family members and a family business but failed to advance the matter for nearly five years following procedural directions requiring particulars and disclosure.

The court held that the delay was inordinate and unexplained and that prejudice to the added respondents was presumed and not rebutted, particularly where particulars had never been provided and documentary evidence had been lost.

The claims against the added respondents were therefore dismissed for delay.

However, the court declined to dismiss the claims against the spouse because family law proceedings between spouses involve ongoing issues such as support and property equalization and both parties contributed to the delay.

The appellant mother sought leave to appeal a temporary care and custody order placing her child with the child's father.

The child had been removed from the mother's care by the Children's Aid Society due to concerns regarding her prescription drug use and mental health.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, and noting that the case was fact-driven and raised no broad issues of public importance.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment awarding custody of the child to the respondent father.

She argued that the trial judge's comments in chambers and during the trial created a reasonable apprehension of bias and prejudgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while some comments were unfortunate, a reasonable person would not conclude the trial judge had prejudged the issue.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's finding that it was in the best interests of the child for the father to have custody, noting the decision was fully supported by the evidence and the factors in section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.