C. Spry

The defendants were successful on a motion requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $130,000.

The defendants subsequently sought costs of that motion on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $26,530.69.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1), noting the complexity of the motion and the plaintiff's unsuccessful res judicata argument.

After stepping back to assess what is fair and reasonable, the court fixed the defendants' costs of the motion at $23,000 inclusive.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful trial in which the court found the defendants had fraudulently conveyed a property to defeat the plaintiff's family law claims.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $297,946.04, arguing the defendants maintained a fraudulent defence throughout the litigation and failed to accept a reasonable offer to settle.

The court agreed, finding the defendants' conduct abusive and dishonest.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full amount claimed on a substantial indemnity basis, divided equally between the two defendants.

The plaintiff sought a declaration under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act that the transfer of a residential property by his spouse to her mother was void as a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat his potential claims arising from matrimonial proceedings.

The court examined badges of fraud including lack of consideration, secrecy of the transfer, and the close relationship between transferor and transferee.

After reviewing credibility issues and conflicting evidence, the court found the spouse was the true owner of the property and transferred it during a troubled marriage to prevent its inclusion in equalization calculations under the Family Law Act.

The court held that the plaintiff qualified as a creditor within the meaning of the statute.

The conveyance was declared null and void.