3 total
The court awarded the mother $3,200 in costs due to the father's unreasonable conduct despite a partial settlement.
The respondent mother sought full indemnity costs following the applicant father's motion for parenting time and travel authorization, where the holiday parenting schedule issue was resolved at a settlement conference.
The father argued against costs, citing the settlement, or sought costs against the mother for unreasonable conduct.
The court found the father's conduct unreasonable, noting his repeated attempts to vary a recent interim order and his uncompromised settlement offer.
The mother's offer was found to be more favourable and compliant with Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules.
Despite the matter settling at a conference, the court awarded fixed costs to the mother, finding that the presumption against costs in such circumstances was overcome by the father's unreasonable conduct and the mother's reasonable offer.
Estate ordered to post security for costs to continue deceased's equalization claim; respondent ordered to produce corporate valuation reports.
Following the death of the applicant in a family law proceeding, the Estate sought to continue the application for equalization and compel the respondent to produce expert reports valuing her corporate assets.
The respondent moved for security for costs, arguing the Estate was insolvent and the litigation was primarily driven by the Estate's counsel to recover unpaid fees.
The court ordered the Estate to post $5,000 in security for costs, finding that the Estate resided outside Ontario and had no assets in the province.
The court also ordered the respondent to produce expert reports to substantiate the corporate values claimed in her net family property statement.
Publication ban denied in paternity case involving religious leader after DNA confirmed his parentage.
The applicant, a prominent religious leader, sought a publication ban and sealing order regarding a paternity application, initially claiming he had no sexual relations with the respondent.
After DNA testing confirmed he was the father, he continued to seek the ban to protect his reputation and commercial interests.
The court dismissed the request, applying the open courts principle and finding that the public interest in transparency outweighed the applicant's desire to suppress truthful information about his conduct.
