David I. Shapiro

Following a garnishment hearing where the applicant was completely successful, the court determined the costs payable by the respondent.

The applicant sought $20,000, while the respondent proposed $7,500.

The court considered the offers to settle, noting the applicant's offer did not strictly comply with the timing rules but the respondent failed to accept it.

Applying the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant costs fixed at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In a garnishment hearing, the applicant sought the release of $73,160.84 from funds paid into court by the respondent, representing spousal support arrears due to unindexed payments and the respondent's unilateral reduction of support.

The respondent argued for a smaller payout of $14,432.75, citing alleged overpayments.

The court affirmed the principle that separation agreements are binding until varied by court order or new agreement, and unilateral variations are not permissible.

It ordered the full amount requested by the applicant to be paid out, with the remaining funds held in court pending the respondent's motion to vary the spousal support order.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the applicant's unsuccessful motion to reduce spousal support.

The respondent, who was entirely successful on the underlying motion, sought full recovery costs.

The applicant argued for costs to be reserved or awarded on a partial indemnity basis, excluding costs related to a case conference.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and, considering the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $10,424 all inclusive, payable by the applicant within 60 days.

The court declined to deal with costs of the case conference, noting that a costs decision should be made after each step in a family law case.

This trial decision addresses a divorce, equalization of net family properties, and an accounting of rents and post-separation expenses between Guy Gionet (Applicant) and Franca Pingue (Respondent).

The court determined beneficial ownership of several properties, finding a resulting trust in favour of the applicant for the matrimonial home and a constructive trust in favour of the respondent for two investment properties.

The applicant was found more credible.

An equalization payment of $59,535.98 was ordered from the applicant to the respondent.

Claims for post-separation expenses and rent accounting were dismissed, as the respondent's expenses were offset by rents received.

The applicant sought to enforce spousal support arrears through a notice of garnishment issued to three major banks.

The respondent filed a notice of dispute.

The banks provided inadequate or incomprehensible responses to the garnishment notices, despite the respondent's financial statement indicating he held assets at these institutions.

The court adjourned the garnishment hearing and ordered representatives from the three banks to attend the next hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to temporarily reduce his spousal support obligation from $25,800 per month to $5,300 per month, alleging a significant drop in income due to the loss of a major client.

The court found the motion premature because the applicant had failed to provide complete financial disclosure for the year in question, preventing the respondent's valuator from analyzing his income.

The motion was adjourned without a date, and the applicant was ordered to continue paying the full support amount until further order or agreement.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $21,661.06 for motions previously decided.

The Respondent argued for no costs or a proportional award.

The court reviewed the outcomes of the prior motions, noting the Applicant's success on significant issues like interim spousal support and production orders, and the Respondent's refusal of a settlement offer.

The court found the Respondent's overall litigation strategy to be one of delay, aiming to force a favourable settlement.

Consequently, the court awarded the Applicant $18,000 in costs, payable forthwith, to be treated as costs incurred to obtain spousal support, reflecting full indemnity less a minor adjustment for the Respondent's partial success on two minor motions.