Emily Comor

The applicant brought a motion for additional financial disclosure from the respondent in a family law proceeding.

The applicant alleged the respondent was underemployed or hiding income and sought 19 outstanding disclosure items, including unredacted account statements and tax documents.

The court ordered the respondent to provide complete, unredacted copies for 16 of the 19 items, finding that the respondent's privacy rights did not justify redacting relevant financial information.

The request for the remaining three items was dismissed without prejudice to the applicant renewing the request with additional evidence.

The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's pleadings due to his repeated failure to comply with multiple court orders for financial disclosure.

Despite four disclosure orders over three and a half years, the respondent failed to produce significant financial documents necessary to determine child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court applied the three-pronged test for striking pleadings and found that the respondent's willful non-compliance was egregious.

The court granted the motion, struck the respondent's pleadings, and ordered the matter to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis following her largely successful motion for disclosure.

The respondent argued for no costs or a modest amount due to his limited financial means.

The court found the applicant's approach reasonable and the respondent's protracted approach to disclosure caused delay, but declined to find bad faith.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the amount of $5,650.00, representing slightly less than full indemnity.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a family law trial.

The applicant, Ms. A.-Z., sought full recovery of her costs, arguing complete success at trial, that the outcome was less favourable to the respondent, Mr. H., than her settlement offers, and that Mr. H.'s behavior was unreasonable throughout the proceedings.

Mr. H. failed to provide costs submissions despite an extension.

The court found Ms. A.-Z. was entitled to full recovery costs from January 1, 2017, due to Mr. H.'s unreasonable conduct, lack of credibility, failure to provide disclosure, and non-compliance with court orders.

The court adjusted counsel rates and excessive time spent on costs submissions.

Ultimately, Mr. H. was ordered to pay Ms. A.-Z. $262,768.68 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a focused hearing where the applicant mother was successful on the issues of school choice and the interim parenting schedule, the court determined the issue of costs.

The mother sought costs on a partial indemnity basis prior to her offer to settle and full indemnity thereafter.

The court found the mother's offer to settle was substantially similar to the final order and awarded her partial indemnity costs prior to the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court also applied the principle that costs for a settlement conference cannot be awarded if the endorsement is silent on costs.

The father was ordered to pay total costs of $34,968.42.

The parties disputed the school choice and interim parenting schedule for their 12-year-old son.

The applicant mother sought to maintain the status quo parenting schedule and enroll the child in a high school near her home.

The respondent father sought an equal parenting schedule and to enroll the child in a high school near his home.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer advocated for the child's stated preference for equal time and the father's school choice.

The court found the father had inappropriately influenced the child's views and that the mother had been the primary parent.

The court ordered the child to attend the mother's choice of school and maintained the status quo parenting schedule, finding it in the child's best interests.

The applicant brought a successful motion for a temporary order to enroll the parties' child in a new school.

Both parties subsequently sought costs for the motion.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, despite her unilateral action in changing the child's school prior to obtaining a court order.

Applying the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amount at $4,673.76 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant mother sought an interim order for her eldest daughter, Nora, to attend École Trille des Bois and its after-school daycare program, following her relocation to a new school district.

The respondent father opposed, requesting Nora remain at École Élémentaire Francojeunesse, the school she previously attended.

The court, noting the high-conflict nature of the parties' litigation and the father's lack of a viable alternative plan for Nora's daily care, granted the mother's motion on a temporary, without prejudice basis.

The judge found the mother's plan to be in the child's best interests, as it provided a comprehensive solution for school and daycare without requiring a variation of the father's limited access schedule.

The father's credibility was also questioned regarding his claims of ignorance about the mother's address and the child's bus travel history.

This costs decision followed two motions concerning the sale of a matrimonial home, where the Respondent repeatedly failed to complete the purchase.

The Applicant sought costs for her successful motion and the dismissal of the Respondent's cross-motion.

The court found the Respondent's conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, including bringing an unauthorized cross-motion and making inaccurate assertions.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the Applicant fixed costs, emphasizing the importance of the issues and the Respondent's conduct.

The applicant wife brought a motion for authorization to list and sell the jointly owned matrimonial home without the respondent husband's consent.

The parties had previously agreed the husband would purchase the wife's interest, but he repeatedly failed to obtain financing and close the transaction, causing the wife financial hardship.

The court dismissed the husband's cross-motion to delay the sale and granted the wife's motion, allowing the husband a final 14-day extension to close, failing which the wife was granted sole authority to list and sell the property.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where an ex parte order obtained by the applicant was set aside due to her failure to provide complete information to the court.

The court had replaced the ex parte order with an interim-interim order for joint custody and a rotating schedule.

The respondent, who was successful in having the ex parte order set aside, sought costs.

The court found the respondent to be the successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

After considering factors such as the importance of the issues, the reasonableness of the parties' behaviour, the absence of settlement offers, and counsel's rates and time spent, the court adjusted the respondent's claimed costs.

The applicant's request to defer payment of costs was denied, consistent with the Family Law Rules.

The applicant was ordered to pay $4,000.00 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant obtained an ex parte order granting interim sole custody and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, along with restraining orders against the respondent.

The respondent moved to set aside this order, alleging material non-disclosure by the applicant.

The court found that the applicant failed to provide full and frank disclosure of relevant information, including positive interactions between the respondent and the children and his significant parenting involvement.

The court set aside the ex parte order and, exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, issued new interim-interim orders for joint custody, children to remain in the matrimonial home, and an alternating exclusive possession schedule for the parents, along with vacating the case conference and appointing the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.