Cheryl Goldhart

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision awarding costs on a full recovery basis following an 11-day family law trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the full recovery scale due to the appellant's serious misconduct and the respondent's offer to settle.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the quantum of costs to account for steps where no costs were ordered and for duplication of work caused by the respondent changing lawyers.

The costs award was reduced to $155,000.

The appellant wife appealed an order refusing her the opportunity to ask the respondent husband's father certain questions and directing him to produce certain documents during pretrial proceedings.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the order was interlocutory in nature and therefore outside its jurisdiction, as it did not finally determine the husband's interest in his father's company.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings for failing to comply with previous disclosure orders, as well as the subsequent costs order.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant had not complied with the disclosure orders, nor was the remedy of striking pleadings harsh or excessive in the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $12,000.

The appellant husband appealed an order varying his child support obligations.

A previous consent order had set support below the Child Support Guidelines table amount.

The motions judge found a material change in circumstances, as the husband was no longer obligated to support the two eldest children, and increased the support for the remaining three children to the Guidelines amount.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or misapprehension of evidence, as there were no special provisions justifying a departure from the Guidelines.