Carol Allen

The former spouse of the bankrupt brought a motion for a declaration lifting the automatic stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to continue family law litigation.

The court found that the former spouse was not a creditor in the bankruptcy proceeding, as anticipated costs awards would be offset against equalization payments.

Therefore, the stay of proceedings did not apply.

The court granted a declaration that the stay does not apply to the family law proceeding, allowing the uncontested trial to proceed.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's pleadings and proceed to an uncontested trial due to the applicant's breach of multiple disclosure orders.

The self-represented applicant did not oppose the motion, stating he could not afford counsel or adequately represent himself.

The court struck the applicant's pleadings, granted the respondent leave to proceed to an uncontested trial, and awarded the respondent $5,000 in costs to be deducted from any future equalization payment owed to the applicant.

Following a family law trial regarding a motion to change support, the successful applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The respondent, who was self-represented and had health issues, caused significant delays and unnecessary prolongation of the trial.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were justified due to the respondent's conduct, but tempered the award to a mid-way point between partial and substantial indemnity due to her health and financial circumstances.

The applicant was awarded $35,000 in costs.

The respondent mother sought leave to appeal a temporary custody order granting the father temporary custody and specified access.

The motion judge considered the test under r. 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring either a conflicting decision or good reason to doubt the correctness of the order coupled with issues of broader importance.

The court found no conflict with existing jurisprudence concerning maintaining the status quo in interim custody matters and concluded the motion judge properly applied the best interests of the child test under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court held the decision to alter the status quo was supported by compelling reasons related to the mother’s conduct in obtaining ex parte relief in another jurisdiction.

Leave to appeal was refused.

Following a family law trial addressing child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and property-related issues, the court determined costs between the parties.

Although the applicant obtained a result exceeding the respondent’s final settlement offer, her own settlement offers were found unreasonable and several significant issues at trial were decided against her.

The court also considered disclosure difficulties caused by the respondent and the respondent’s submission of an altered contract, which increased mistrust and litigation complexity.

Balancing these factors, the court declined substantial indemnity costs but awarded reduced partial indemnity costs.

Pre-trial costs were allowed as claimed, while trial costs were reduced to reflect the applicant’s limited success on certain issues.