Gagan Sekhon

This is a costs ruling arising from a family law trial decision released on May 5, 2025.

The principal trial issues involved determination of the valuation date and property ownership, including equalization of the spouses' net family properties.

Neither party's choice of valuation date was accepted; the court determined a different valuation date (August 3, 2013) for which there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a full trial.

The applicant sought partial recovery costs of at least $375,000, while the respondent sought the same amount or alternatively that no costs be awarded.

The court found the applicant achieved partial success on the valuation date and limitation period extension, while the respondent achieved no success and acted in bad faith.

The court awarded costs to the applicant but at a significantly reduced amount due to inefficiencies in the litigation strategy and reliance on an invalid agreement.

This decision addresses the determination of the valuation date for equalization of net family property and the extension of time to bring an equalization claim under the Family Law Act.

The court finds the parties separated on August 3, 2013, and grants the applicant wife an extension of time to bring her claim, rejecting the respondent husband's earlier separation date and arguments of substantial prejudice.

The court also finds that a family "Agreement and Last Will" was a sham trust, intended to shield assets from creditors, and that the evidentiary record is insufficient to determine equalization, requiring a new trial on equalization and support.

A costs decision following contested motions for custody and access in a high-conflict family law matter.

The mother sought full recovery of costs at $13,079.75 after succeeding on her motion for sole custody and access.

The father argued the amount was excessive and claimed inability to pay.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a substantial recovery basis, finding the father's conduct was unreasonable, including filing disproportionate and voluminous material, and failing to make a reasonable settlement offer.

The court awarded $10,000 all-inclusive (fees plus HST and disbursements).

This is a costs endorsement following a trial decision on child and spousal support obligations.

The court ordered the father to pay child support, spousal support, and arrears retroactive to January 1, 2015.

The mother sought costs of $6,000, while the father claimed inability to pay.

The court found that the mother's offer to settle met all requirements under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules and was significantly more favorable than the father's offer.

The court awarded costs of $5,200 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $150 per month starting November 1, 2016, with acceleration provisions for non-payment.

A trial decision addressing child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses following the separation of the parties.

The applicant sought to impute the respondent's income at $74,261 and requested retroactive child and spousal support.

The respondent sought to impute his income at $56,817 and the applicant's income at $30,000, and opposed spousal support.

The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed after voluntarily taking a lower-paying position and imputed his income at $74,261.

The court awarded child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses, with retroactive application to January 1, 2015.

The respondent was found to owe significant arrears.