Ida Mirzadeh

Following motions for an interim parenting order and a Form 14B motion for fresh evidence, the successful respondent mother sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant father argued no costs should be awarded or they should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court rejected the father's arguments, finding his settlement offers unreasonable and his Form 14B motion materials misleading.

The court awarded the respondent mother costs fixed at $23,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment in a family law matter following an uncontested trial that proceeded after the appellant's pleadings were struck due to non-compliance with court orders.

The appellant sought a declaration that the vesting order granting title of the matrimonial home was made in error and challenged the award of spousal support as a lump sum payment from the sale proceeds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the vesting order was appropriate given the appellant's repeated failures to comply with court orders, and that the trial judge's reasons adequately explained the decision.

The husband sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a final family law order, a stay of that order pending appeal, and relief regarding the matrimonial home.

The trial judge had struck the husband's pleadings for failure to comply with undertakings and court orders, resulting in an uncontested trial where the wife was awarded lump-sum spousal support of $248,734, an equalization payment, costs, and a restraining order.

The matrimonial home was ordered sold.

The husband delayed five months before seeking the extension of time, during which he attempted to frustrate the sale and develop a litigation strategy rather than prepare his appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time but dismissed the stay request and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the wife.

The applicant mother brought a motion for $30,000 in interim disbursements under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules to fund a critique of the respondent father's income valuation and further litigation steps regarding child support.

The court applied the modified Okanagan test for family law cases.

While finding the applicant impecunious and that an award would level the playing field, the court dismissed the motion without prejudice because the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent's income was higher than disclosed, and failed to provide evidence detailing how the requested funds would be utilized.