Damandeep-Singh Aujla

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.

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.