Chloe van Wirdum

This endorsement addresses costs arising from a motion for temporary spousal support where the Applicant was largely successful.

The Applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the Respondent sought full recovery costs, arguing the Applicant's unreasonable conduct in bringing the motion on short notice should disentitle her to costs.

The court found the Applicant's conduct unreasonable, partly due to her fragile medical condition, but also noted the Respondent's prior failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court determined that the Applicant's unreasonable conduct warranted a reduction in her costs award, but not a denial, and dismissed the Respondent's claim for costs, finding that many of his incurred costs related to overdue financial disclosure.

The Applicant was awarded approximately 50% of her substantial indemnity costs.

Following a motion for interim support where the applicant was ordered to pay costs in the cause, the respondent Estate Trustee sought to vary the costs order based on a previously undisclosed offer to settle.

The court found the offer was more favourable to the applicant than the motion's outcome.

The court amended the costs order, directing that the $40,000 in partial indemnity costs be payable by the applicant in any event of the cause at the conclusion of the application.

The applicant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, brought a motion for interim support under the Succession Law Reform Act pending the final determination of her dependant's support application.

The deceased was a wealthy real estate developer who left his entire estate to his estranged wife and daughters.

The court rejected the applicant's budget of over $93,000 per month as unsubstantiated and overstated, instead awarding $30,000 per month in interim support.

The court dismissed the applicant's requests for interim legal fees, HST indemnification, and production of the deceased's estate planning files.

The court also granted the estate's cross-motion in part, imposing restrictions on the applicant's use of the estate-owned condominium, including a 15-person guest limit and a ban on posting interior photos on social media.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support following the parties' separation.

The applicant, who recently underwent a double lung transplant, sought $200,000 per month based on the respondent's high income and their lavish lifestyle during the marriage.

The respondent, a wealthy individual with complex financial affairs, proposed $40,000 per month plus medical expenses.

The court conducted a budget analysis and ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $54,000 per month, plus up to $28,000 per month for a personal care assistant, pending further financial disclosure and a final determination.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal decision.

The appellant achieved only partial success on appeal.

The court reduced the respondent's costs award from $180,000 to $135,000 (a 25% reduction), finding that while the respondent remained entitled to costs of the application, some reduction was appropriate given the appellant's partial success and the disputed issues on appeal.

The court also declined to award costs to the appellant for his motion for a stay of the application judge's decision, finding the claimed costs excessive and the motion inappropriate as it sought multiple forms of relief beyond the stay order.

Appeal from an application judge's decision regarding the division of property following the breakdown of a common law relationship.

The appellant sought sole beneficial ownership of a jointly-titled residential property (Brookdale Avenue) or, alternatively, a credit for his repayment of a joint line of credit used to finance its purchase.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the respondent held a 50 per cent legal and beneficial interest in the property, but allowed the appeal in part by granting the appellant a $500,000 credit on division of sale proceeds for his repayment of the respondent's share of the joint debt.

This interim motion addressed parental alienation in a custody dispute involving two children.

The court found clear evidence that the children had been alienated from the respondent mother through the combined efforts of the applicant father and Caroline Hay, a former nanny with a close bond to the children.

The court emphasized the need for immediate action in parental alienation cases.

It ordered the parties and children to forthwith attend reintegration therapy with Andrea Barclay, with costs shared, and prohibited Caroline Hay from having any contact with the children.

The court rejected the applicant's proposal to continue therapy with Melissa Healy, finding her approach to reintegration inappropriate.

A judicial review was scheduled to determine the necessity of a s.30 assessment and a residential schedule after the therapy report.

The wife amended her divorce application to claim an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act, alleging the husband recklessly depleted assets on extra-marital affairs.

The motion judge struck the claim without leave to amend, relying on summary judgment rules and civil pleading standards.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the motion judge erred by applying civil rules to family law pleadings and by striking the s. 5(6) claim without notice.

However, the Court struck specific inflammatory paragraphs detailing the husband's conduct under r. 1(8.2) of the Family Law Rules, as they were unrelated to financial consequences.

The applicant, Victoria Chechui, sought costs following a trial where she was awarded an interest in a property but not a joint account.

The respondent, Ian Jamieson Nieman, argued for divided success and reduced costs.

The court found Victoria entitled to costs, noting Ian forced the matter to trial and made a late, unreasonable offer.

The court declined to undertake a detailed analysis of time spent on each issue, finding it impractical and noting Ian's conduct prolonged the trial.

The court rejected Victoria's claim for full indemnity costs based on her offer to settle, as the offer was for a fixed amount for half the property, while the order was for sale and equal division, making it impossible to compare.

However, Victoria's offer was deemed more reasonable than Ian's.

The court removed costs for settlement and trial management conferences where no costs were ordered, and for an articling student's time deemed unreasonable.

Considering the purposes of costs, offers to settle, reasonableness, proportionality, and the losing party's expectations, the court fixed Victoria's costs at $180,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

This trial concerned the ownership of a jointly held house (Brookdale) and a joint investment account following the separation of the applicant, Victoria Chechui, and the respondent, Ian Jamieson Nieman.

Victoria claimed 50% ownership in both, while Ian argued Victoria held her interests in trust for him, or alternatively, made an unjust enrichment claim.

Ian also sought damages for breach of trust, fiduciary duty, or contract.

The court found for Victoria regarding the Brookdale property, determining it was a joint gift and jointly owned.

However, the court found for Ian regarding the joint investment account, concluding that Victoria held her interest in trust for Ian, as his intention was only to grant a right of survivorship, not an immediate gift of half the funds.

All of Ian's damage claims were dismissed due to lack of proof and absence of a fiduciary relationship or contract.