C. Still

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive child support and contribution to special and extraordinary expenses for two children.

The respondent father, who was self-employed, had failed to provide timely financial disclosure and his income had significantly increased in recent years.

The court found no blameworthy conduct to justify a retroactive variation prior to November 2016, but imputed the father's income for 2016 onwards.

The court ordered the father to pay retroactive table support, ongoing table support for one child, and his proportionate share of special and extraordinary expenses, including clothing for a child with special needs residing in a treatment centre.

The estate trustee sought clarification of a prior costs order arising from estate litigation between the trustee and a beneficiary.

The issue was whether the respondent beneficiary was required to pay the ordered costs to the trustee personally or in her representative capacity as estate trustee.

Applying the modern approach to costs in estate litigation, which generally follows ordinary civil costs principles unless public policy considerations apply, the court reaffirmed that the losing party must bear the costs personally.

The court concluded that the respondent beneficiary must pay the awarded costs directly to the applicant in her personal capacity.

The applicant brought a motion challenging the validity of several clauses in a will that conditioned her inheritance on compliance with certain directives of the testator.

The court considered whether a clause prohibiting any challenge to the will constituted an in terrorem clause and whether other conditional gifts were void for uncertainty or contrary to public policy.

The court held that the clause forbidding any litigation against the estate was void as an impermissible in terrorem clause because it imposed a bare forfeiture without a gift over.

One condition that disinherited the beneficiary if she were merely investigated or charged with inappropriate care was also declared void as contrary to public policy.

Other conditions relating to hospital admission and life‑prolonging treatment were upheld, and a clause giving the executrix discretion to distribute the estate if the beneficiary breached the conditions was not invalidated.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent successfully brought a motion against three non-party corporations seeking financial disclosure required by a business valuator to determine the applicant’s income.

After the motion succeeded and disclosure was ordered subject to a confidentiality agreement, the parties returned to court to resolve disputes over the confidentiality terms and costs.

Both sides sought substantial indemnity costs and relied on offers to settle under Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that neither party met the burden of proving that the result was as favourable as their respective offers and therefore assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Applying the factors in Rule 24 and considering the respondent’s substantial success on the disclosure motion, the court ordered the non-parties to pay costs.

In a family law proceeding, the responding spouse brought a motion seeking disclosure from three non-party corporations connected to the applicant spouse’s business interests.

The requested documents were required by the moving party’s business valuator to assess the value of the applicant’s corporate interests and income for matrimonial property purposes.

The corporations resisted disclosure citing confidentiality concerns and sought to redact information relating to other shareholders.

The court applied Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules and held that it would be unfair for the moving party to proceed without the requested information.

The court ordered production of the outstanding documents without redactions, subject to litigation privilege and a confidentiality agreement.