Mr. Desnoyers

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 court rendered a costs endorsement following a six-day trial in a family law matter.

The Applicant sought substantial costs, arguing she was largely successful on major issues such as imputed income and support.

The Respondent argued for each party to bear their own costs, claiming neither party's offer to settle was more favourable.

The court found the Applicant to be the more successful party on the major issues, particularly regarding imputed income and retroactive support, and awarded the Applicant $15,000 in costs, considering the complexity of issues, parties' behaviour, and expert fees.

The respondent sought costs on a full recovery basis following a motion to enforce a prior order.

The court found the respondent to be the "more successful party" but not "almost entirely successful" and that settlement offers did not trigger full recovery.

The court also noted the respondent's "dogmatic" approach to medical/dental expenses disproportionately increased hearing time.

The applicant's conduct regarding post-secondary education obligations was deemed "obfuscation and deliberate." Costs were awarded to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis, but reduced due to excessive fees and unreasonable disbursements (investigator).

The applicant mother sought to enforce and vary a 2008 child support order, including retroactive adjustments for child support and section 7 expenses for two adult children.

The respondent father disputed the retroactive application of support principles, arguing one child was no longer a "child of the marriage" when the motion was initiated.

The court characterized the mother's motion primarily as one of enforcement due to the father's failure to comply with financial disclosure obligations under the existing order.

The court determined the father's income for various years, his province of residence for child support table calculations, and the termination dates for child support for both children.

The court also addressed post-secondary education expenses, excluding bus passes, and found the father failed to prove his contributions.

For section 7 expenses, the court emphasized the requirement for advance written consent for each expense, finding the mother had disregarded this process.