Kalex Valuations Inc.

The applicant brought two motions: one to strike the respondent's pleadings regarding non-parenting claims and for other relief, and another for a finding of contempt due to the respondent's failure to comply with disclosure orders.

The respondent did not file a response but appeared in court.

The court declined to make a contempt finding, noting the applicant did not make submissions on the test for contempt.

Instead, the court issued a further disclosure order with strict timelines for financial documents, warning that failure to comply could result in striking the respondent's pleadings on financial issues.

The court also declined further orders on parenting issues and awarded costs to the applicant.

The defendants, McCarney Group LLP et al., sought summary judgment to set aside transactions restructuring an accounting firm ("Oldco") under various insolvency and fraudulent conveyance statutes.

The plaintiffs, former partners and an affiliate of Oldco, alleged the restructuring was a transfer at undervalue designed to defeat their claims.

The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding Oldco's insolvency at the time of the restructuring and whether the assets (accounts receivable, work-in-process, and goodwill) were transferred at an undervalue.

The court emphasized that expert reports are not strictly required to establish an undervalue, and that oral testimony and cross-examination were necessary to resolve factual disputes regarding asset valuation and the existence of goodwill.

Following a nine‑day family law trial concerning child support income, arrears, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and distribution of trust funds, both parties sought substantial costs awards against the other.

The court considered the Family Law Rules, particularly Rule 24, and the principles governing costs including proportionality, success at trial, reasonableness of conduct, and the parties’ financial circumstances.

The court found that success at trial was divided, with each party prevailing on different issues.

Certain claimed fees and disbursements were disallowed because costs for earlier steps had not been reserved to the trial judge.

After weighing the relevant factors, the court concluded that fairness required each party to bear their own costs.