3 total
Bad faith litigation conduct justified substantial indemnity costs.
Following an 8‑day motion to change relating to support obligations under a prior arbitration award, the court addressed costs.
The responding party on the motion had been successful in obtaining child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses, and sought full indemnity costs exceeding $340,000.
The court found the moving party acted unreasonably and in bad faith by concealing income, misleading his expert, breaching court orders, and rejecting a reasonable offer to settle.
Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principle of proportionality, the court reduced certain disbursements and paralegal rates but concluded that substantial indemnity costs were justified.
Costs of $297,700.65 were awarded, payable in instalments, with a portion enforceable as part of the support order.
Court clarifies interim spousal support order and declines to consider tax consequences.
Following an earlier endorsement ordering interim spousal support, the parties sought clarification on the tax treatment of payments, the commencement date for monthly support, and the termination date of a $4,000 dividend payment historically paid through the respondent’s company.
The court declined to account for tax consequences in calculating arrears or support, stating that tax treatment is a matter for the Canada Revenue Agency.
The court clarified that the $20,000 monthly interim spousal support obligation was retroactive to November 18, 2010 and payable on the 18th day of each month.
The court further confirmed that the historical $4,000 monthly dividend payment was intended as a temporary measure and would end prior to May 1, 2012.
The respondent was credited for support payments already made when calculating arrears.
Appeal of business valuation and equalization payment allowed in part to correct interest on shareholder loans.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment that determined the equalization payment required to separate a family business under a consent order.
The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on the valuation of the businesses, the tax treatment of parked debt under the Income Tax Act, and the scope of the issues tried.
However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding an agreement to pay interest on unequal shareholder loans, resulting in a $108,500 credit to the appellants.
