3 total
Substantial indemnity costs awarded for failure to provide financial disclosure.
Following a family law motion in which the respondent’s pleadings were struck for failure to provide financial disclosure, the court determined the costs consequences.
The applicant sought $15,539 on a full recovery basis, arguing that the result exceeded her Offer to Settle.
The court held that the offer was reasonable and that the respondent’s persistent failure to comply with disclosure obligations and court orders warranted substantial indemnity costs as a sanction.
After reviewing the bill of costs and considering the complexity of the motion, counsel rates, and time spent, the court reduced certain items including travel time and some junior lawyer hours.
The court ordered the respondent to pay $10,000 in costs to the applicant.
Husband's Answer struck in family law proceeding due to deliberate and flagrant failure to provide financial disclosure.
The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's Answer in a family law proceeding.
The custody and access issues had already been resolved, leaving only financial issues.
The husband had repeatedly failed to provide required financial disclosure, breaching multiple consent orders and the Family Law Rules over a period of more than two years.
The court found the husband's breaches to be deliberate, flagrant, and prejudicial to the wife.
Concluding that this was an exceptional case where the husband's conduct prevented the case from being dealt with justly, the court granted the motion and struck the husband's Answer.
Risky stock trading losses did not justify unequal division of family property.
Following the breakdown of a long-term marriage, the court addressed equalization of net family property and spousal support.
The respondent alleged reckless depletion of family assets through extensive credit-card financed online stock trading and sought an unequal division under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.
The court held that although the trading was imprudent and resulted in significant debt, it did not meet the high threshold of “unconscionability” required to depart from equalization.
The court rejected a claimed $600,000 loan from a family friend as an unenforceable and undocumented alleged debt.
Retroactive and ongoing spousal support were awarded based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines given the respondent’s economic disadvantage following a traditional and controlling marriage.
