Christopher A. Mamo

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by the applicant to appoint an investigative receiver-monitor and for interim disbursements in a complex corporate/family dispute.

Although most issues were settled just before the scheduled hearing, the court found compelling reasons to award costs to the applicant due to the respondents' litigation conduct, including failure to provide proper financial disclosure and late capitulation on key issues.

The applicant was deemed the successful party, having secured the appointment of their proposed receiver and interim disbursements of $1 million.

The court awarded $125,000 in costs to the applicant, balancing the applicant's success against the proportionality of the fees incurred, and declined to order joint and several liability as requested, preserving the issue for trial.

This decision addresses the costs of a complex motion concerning the interpretation of an interim preservation order's "usual and ordinary course of business" term.

The applicant sought partial recovery costs of approximately $105,000, while the respondents proposed $25,000.

The court awarded the applicant $98,000, finding them overwhelmingly successful on the key issues.

The court emphasized proportionality, the complexity and high stakes of the litigation, and the respondents' conduct, including significant delays, late affidavit delivery, and a "scorched earth policy," which unnecessarily increased costs.

This motion concerned the interpretation of the term “usual and ordinary course of business” as it applied to corporate respondents in an interim preservation order.

The corporate respondents sought an expansive interpretation to allow significant financial transactions, including leveraging properties and transferring funds for a private mortgage lending business.

The applicant sought a narrow interpretation to preserve assets.

The court applied principles of judicial order interpretation, emphasizing context and purpose, and found the respondents' proposed interpretation would negate the preservation order's effect.

The court adopted a narrow definition, limiting “usual and ordinary course of business” to day-to-day operations and management, explicitly excluding large-scale asset encumbrance or intercorporate fund transfers for investment.

All other relief sought by the respondents was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking temporary orders for sole decision-making authority regarding the children's education, increased child and spousal support, and production of text messages between the respondent father and her ex-boyfriend.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the proposed private school enrollment was not in the child's best interests, the existing voluntary support payments were adequate, and the requested text messages were irrelevant to the proceedings.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside a default order that permitted the applicant father to proceed to an uncontested trial on parenting and property issues.

The mother had failed to file an Answer after relocating to British Columbia following a mental health crisis.

Applying the five-factor test for setting aside default judgments, the court found that while the motion was not brought promptly, the mother had a plausible excuse due to her mental health and lack of counsel.

Emphasizing that parenting decisions should be made on a full evidentiary record, the court set aside the default order on terms, allowing the mother to file an Answer while granting the father temporary sole decision-making responsibility and costs thrown away.

The court addressed costs for a prior motion where the respondent father sought parenting relief.

The applicant mother was largely successful in resisting the father's requests regarding the children's access and communication, though the father obtained some relief regarding the location of access and the continuation of a prior consent order.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs, while the father argued for no costs or a substantial reduction.

The court, applying Family Law Rules 18 and 24, found the mother to be the more successful party overall, but noted her offer to settle lacked a "true element of compromise" and her unreasonable behaviour in failing to commence recommended counselling.

The court fixed costs at $7,500 for the mother, payable by the father upon specific future events.

The applicant sought various urgent relief, including a certificate of pending litigation and a Mareva injunction, after the respondent breached a court order by refinancing a property without consent, increasing its debt load.

The court dismissed the certificate of pending litigation and Mareva injunction requests, finding the applicant failed to meet the high thresholds.

However, the court granted a preservation order against the property and certain funds, ordered specific disclosure, and allowed the applicant to inspect the property, emphasizing the importance of obeying court orders and protecting potential support and property claims.

The applicant sought interim relief, which was granted by an earlier endorsement.

The respondent failed to file responding materials by the deadline and requested an adjournment to allow newly retained counsel to finalize materials and argue the motion, particularly regarding access.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, arguing the motion was moot as the children had been returned to her.

The court acknowledged the respondent's delay but found it was not in a position to foreclose the respondent's access request without reviewing his sworn evidence.

The motion was adjourned for a further telephone conference to assess the urgency of the respondent's access terms.

Interim orders were made regarding primary care, communication through Our Family Wizard, and reservation of costs.

The applicant sought urgent relief for the return of two children, alleging unlawful withholding by the respondent amidst the COVID-19 situation.

The court found the matter urgent and granted the applicant's interim motion, ordering the immediate return of the children to the applicant's care and control, maintaining the status quo.

The respondent's claim of a 50/50 parenting agreement was not supported by the evidence.

The parties, married for 16 years with four children, sought interim orders regarding a section 30 assessment, a Voice of the Child Report, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The Respondent sought a section 30 assessment, which the Applicant opposed, suggesting a Voice of the Child Report instead.

The court dismissed the Respondent's request for a section 30 assessment due to insufficient evidence, cost, and delay concerns, particularly given the children's ages and existing professional involvement.

A Voice of the Child Report was ordered for the three youngest children (ages 8, 12, 14) to ascertain their views and preferences, with costs shared equally.

Interim child support was set at $13,945.00 per month, and interim spousal support at $4,910.00 per month, with the Applicant paying 100% of specified section 7 expenses.

The court emphasized the importance of including section 7 expenses and associated tax implications in SSAG calculations.

The retroactive support claim was deferred to trial, and procedural directions were given to expedite the case to trial.