Brad Lund

This decision addresses costs following a motion and cross-motion in a family law matter.

The Respondent Wife sought spousal support, interim disbursements, and financial disclosure, while the Applicant Husband brought a cross-motion for similar relief.

The court found the Wife largely successful, particularly due to the Husband's delayed and incomplete financial disclosure, which was deemed to be in bad faith.

The Wife's offers to settle surpassed the court's eventual order on spousal support and disbursements.

The court awarded the Wife fixed costs of $27,000, with $16,200 enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, considering the Husband's conduct and the parties' financial circumstances.

This decision addresses companion motions concerning disclosure, imputation of income, spousal support, and an advance for interim fees and disbursements.

The court found a pattern of late disclosure by the Applicant, Peter Michael Probst, and drew an adverse inference regarding his income.

The court declined to impute income to the Respondent, Tasmeen Shah, due to her documented medical condition.

Interim spousal support was ordered for Ms. Shah, and an advance for her legal fees and disbursements was granted to ensure procedural fairness, given the complexity of financial issues and Mr. Probst's non-disclosure.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for breach of a consulting and management contract.

The appellants argued that one of the corporate defendants was not a party to the contract and that the trial judge erred in calculating the damages period.

The Court of Appeal held that the non-party corporation was bound by the contract through its conduct and acceptance of services.

However, the Court found that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in interpreting the contract's term.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the damages award to reflect a five-year initial term.