D. Larry Segal

This is a costs decision following a 10-day trial focused on parenting, child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The applicant mother was largely successful on parenting issues, established spousal support entitlement (though no current ability to pay was found for the father), and the court agreed no equalization payment was owing.

The court found the respondent father's unreasonable conduct, including failure to provide full financial disclosure and wrongful withholding of children, significantly increased the mother's legal costs.

The court awarded the mother $80,000 in all-inclusive costs, finding the father's conduct warranted a higher award than partial indemnity for specific parts of the litigation.

This trial decision addressed parenting, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following a high-conflict separation.

The court found the father wrongfully withheld the children and made false allegations of abuse, drawing an adverse inference against his credibility due to non-disclosure.

The mother's proposed parenting schedule, which shifts to weekday care with her and weekends with the father during the school year, was adopted as being in the children's best interest, emphasizing stability and academic success.

Decision-making responsibilities were divided, with the mother having final say on health and education, and the father on dental health.

Child support obligations were confirmed with set-off amounts.

While the mother established a strong compensatory entitlement to spousal support, no order was made due to the father's current inability to pay, with leave to vary in the future.

No equalization payment was ordered, partly due to the father's failure to provide full financial disclosure regarding his business interests.

Following a motion where the court struck a component of the plaintiff's tort claim and ordered parallel family and tort proceedings to be jointly case managed, the court determined costs.

Finding divided success and novelty in the issues, the court fixed costs at $8,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

Given the questionable utility of the second action, costs were ordered payable to the plaintiff in the cause.

The parties submitted a proposed order incorporating terms from a previous endorsement.

The court revised the order to specify that the interim child support and reunification counselling orders are made under the Divorce Act alone.

The court noted that applications under the Family Law Act and Children's Law Reform Act are stayed once a divorce action is commenced.

The plaintiff commenced a divorce proceeding and a separate civil tort action against the defendant spouse, alleging assault and negligence.

The defendant moved to strike or stay the civil action as an abuse of process, arguing it improperly circumvented the family law regime.

The court declined to strike the entire civil action, finding it is not prima facie an abuse of process to commence a separate tort proceeding.

However, the court struck certain improperly pleaded claims, struck the jury notice, and ordered joint case management of both proceedings to avoid duplication and ensure judicial efficiency.

This endorsement addresses costs following a complex family law trial involving corporate interests, income determination, child and spousal support, and property division.

The Applicant sought full indemnity costs of $578,388.22, while the Respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $150,000 against the Applicant.

The court found the Applicant substantially, though not completely, successful on major issues.

The Respondent's conduct, particularly concealing the sale of a business, was deemed extremely unreasonable and prolonged litigation, ruling out any costs award in her favour.

No bad faith was found by either party.

Considering the Applicant's success, the Respondent's unreasonable conduct, the complexity of issues, and the parties' ability to pay, the court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant $350,000 in costs.

The parties separated after a 24-year marriage during which the respondent built a highly successful software company and the applicant was a stay-at-home parent.

Post-separation, the respondent unilaterally redeemed the applicant's shares in the company and sold the business for $2.2 million without notice to the applicant.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that an equal division would be unconscionable given the respondent's unilateral actions, lack of disclosure, and the windfall from the sale.

The court awarded the applicant an unequal division payment of $174,920.28.

The court also imputed investment income to the respondent and employment income to the applicant for the purposes of calculating retroactive and ongoing spousal and child support.

The respondent father brought a motion for increased and overnight access to the parties' two young children.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for temporary child support, spousal support, and an interim disbursement to hire an income expert.

The court granted the father's request for a graduated schedule of overnight access.

The court ordered the father to pay temporary child support of $2,108 per month and temporary spousal support of $770 per month, after imputing an income of $70,000 to the mother due to intentional underemployment.

The mother's request for a $20,000 interim disbursement was dismissed as she had access to joint funds.

Following a successful motion by certain beneficiaries to remove estate counsel, the court determined the costs consequences.

Applying Rule 57 principles governing costs in estate litigation, the court held that costs should generally follow the event and be borne personally by litigants rather than the estate except in narrow circumstances.

The court found the moving parties were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis but reduced the claimed fees and disbursements as excessive, including reducing photocopy disbursements.

Costs were fixed at reduced amounts and ordered payable personally by the estate trustees on a joint and several basis.

Certain beneficiaries of an estate brought a motion to remove the estate solicitor and his firm due to a conflict of interest in a contested passing of accounts.

The solicitor had previously acted for one of the estate trustees when she was the deceased's power of attorney for property, and had handled many of the transactions now in dispute.

The court found that the solicitor's extensive involvement in the deceased's affairs and the estate created a potential conflict situation.

The motion was granted and the solicitor's firm was removed as counsel for the estate.

Following a 13‑day family law trial involving custody, residential arrangements for children, and retroactive child and spousal support, both parties sought costs.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party after obtaining sole custody, defeating the respondent’s claim for equal parenting time, and securing retroactive support exceeding $140,000 based on a higher imputed income.

The respondent argued for divided success based on various factual findings and limited access adjustments, but the court rejected that characterization.

Litigation conduct issues were raised against both parties, including delay, breaches of communication restrictions, and difficulties caused by the respondent’s inadequate financial disclosure.

The court awarded the applicant generous partial indemnity costs but declined full indemnity due to procedural irregularities and aspects of the applicant’s conduct.

Mid-trial evidentiary ruling in a family law custody and access dispute concerning the admissibility of a custody and access assessment prepared in a prior proceeding between the same parties.

The respondent argued the report was inadmissible under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court held that although the report could not be admitted automatically under s. 30(9), that provision does not displace the general law of evidence.

The assessor was not prohibited from testifying and may provide factual or opinion evidence if common law expert evidence requirements are met.

However, the report itself was ordered removed from the trial record and may only be tendered when the witness testifies.

Following an 11‑day family law trial concerning parenting arrangements, child support, equalization, and related financial claims, the court addressed costs.

The court applied the presumption under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules that the successful party is entitled to costs and assessed the parties’ success across each issue.

The applicant was found to be the more successful party overall, particularly on custody, decision‑making authority, primary residence of the child, and equalization, while the respondent was more successful on child support.

Allegations of bad faith were rejected, though both parties were found to have behaved somewhat unreasonably in aspects of the litigation.

Considering offers to settle and the factors under Rule 24(11), the court ordered the respondent to pay partial recovery costs.

The parties separated after a short marriage characterized by conflict.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of their four-year-old daughter, while the respondent father sought joint custody and equal parenting time.

The father also claimed damages for malicious prosecution, alleging the mother made false assault allegations leading to criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The court ordered joint custody with a parallel parenting regime, finding it in the child's best interests to foster a relationship with both parents despite their communication difficulties.

The court implemented a shared parenting schedule but declined to order a 50/50 split.

The father's claims for malicious prosecution and unequal division of net family property were dismissed.

The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment and set-off child support.

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the responding party's (former wife) application to set aside their separation agreement and claim spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The responding party alleged she signed the agreement under duress, without proper financial disclosure, and without independent legal advice.

The court applied the "full appreciation test" for summary judgment and the Miglin two-stage test for setting aside domestic contracts.

The court found no evidence of duress, noted the responding party had counsel but chose to sign without them, and concluded the agreement substantially complied with the Divorce Act.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the application was dismissed.