E. Reid

The parties settled all outstanding issues regarding custody, access, and child support on the eve of trial and signed Minutes of Settlement.

The issue of costs was preserved for written submissions.

The applicant sought costs of $52,128.70, while the respondent argued for no costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's request, finding that it is inappropriate to award costs based on a settlement where there is no clear successful party or judicial fact-finding on the merits.

No costs were awarded to either party.

In a family law motion to change a prior support order, the applicant sought extensive financial disclosure from three corporations in which the respondent held shares to determine the respondent’s true income for child support purposes.

The court considered the criteria under rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules governing disclosure from non-parties.

It held that broader disclosure was warranted from the corporation wholly owned by the respondent because its assets were directly relevant to assessing his means.

However, disclosure requests concerning asset details from corporations in which the respondent held only minority interests were denied on proportionality grounds.

Partial production of corporate tax summaries and related documents was ordered with redactions.