Jaret N. Moldaver

The parties, married for 16 years with four children, sought interim orders regarding a section 30 assessment, a Voice of the Child Report, child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses.

The Respondent sought a section 30 assessment, which the Applicant opposed, suggesting a Voice of the Child Report instead.

The court dismissed the Respondent's request for a section 30 assessment due to insufficient evidence, cost, and delay concerns, particularly given the children's ages and existing professional involvement.

A Voice of the Child Report was ordered for the three youngest children (ages 8, 12, 14) to ascertain their views and preferences, with costs shared equally.

Interim child support was set at $13,945.00 per month, and interim spousal support at $4,910.00 per month, with the Applicant paying 100% of specified section 7 expenses.

The court emphasized the importance of including section 7 expenses and associated tax implications in SSAG calculations.

The retroactive support claim was deferred to trial, and procedural directions were given to expedite the case to trial.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the applicant, Ms. Kang, was largely successful in interpreting a consent order, while the respondent, Mr. Kang, was found to be in breach.

Ms. Kang sought substantial indemnity costs, which Mr. Kang opposed, also seeking his own costs.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules, found Ms. Kang entitled to costs due to her success and Mr. Kang's unreasonable conduct and failure to beat his offer to settle.

Costs were fixed at $12,742.33 payable by Mr. Kang to Ms. Kang, to be paid from funds held in trust.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that granted partial summary judgment in favour of the respondent on the issue of non-disclosure of the appellant Neil's interest in a family trust established by his father Solomon.

The motion judge found that Neil had deliberately failed to disclose his interest in the trust to Randi when they entered into a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the trust indenture had been disclosed to Randi's counsel and financial advisors, and that Randi was deemed to have knowledge of Neil's interest through her counsel.

The court held that Neil's omission from his financial statements could not transform actual disclosure into non-disclosure under section 56(4) of the Family Law Act.

The court also found that even if there had been non-disclosure, the asset was not significant as it constituted excluded property under the Family Law Act.

The claims for conspiracy to commit fraud, deceit, and punitive damages against Solomon were also dismissed as they could not be sustained on the evidence.

The Applicant sought costs of a motion and the overall proceeding after a settlement agreement in a high-conflict family law case.

The Respondent also sought costs.

The court awarded the Applicant $5,000 plus HST and disbursements for the motion on a full recovery basis, payable from the Respondent's share of net proceeds.

For the costs of the proceeding, the court found neither party substantially successful in the settlement but determined the Applicant was entitled to partial indemnity costs due to the Respondent's unreasonable and obstructionist behaviour, including failure to disclose financial information and comply with court orders.

The quantum for the proceeding costs was reserved for a further attendance, requiring the Applicant to submit a revised bill of costs excluding "steps in the case" where costs were already dealt with.

The Respondent's claim of inability to pay was rejected due to his lack of financial disclosure and unreasonable conduct.

The Applicant brought a cross-motion for partial summary judgment regarding the valuation date, and the Respondent brought a motion for disclosure and a valuation report at her valuation date.

The court adjourned the Applicant's cross-motion due to insufficient notice and the need for a full day hearing, and also adjourned the Respondent's disclosure motion until after the valuation date issue is determined.

The Applicant was ordered to pay costs for the adjournment.

The respondent brought a motion to quash an appeal on the ground that the order under appeal was interlocutory and not final, placing it outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

The order arose from ongoing family law proceedings and required the appellant to make monthly spousal and child support payments, with a provision allowing the respondent to strike the appellant's pleadings on financial issues if payments were not made.

The appellant argued he could not pay and that the consequence clause created a "catch 22" preventing his participation in ongoing proceedings.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory and quashed the appeal, finding the jurisdictional issue was plain and obvious.

The appellant brought a motion for directions seeking an order that motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court be heard by the Court of Appeal.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-motion to adjourn the appeal hearing and extend time to file responding materials.

The motions judge dismissed the motion for directions, finding the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to determine a motion for leave to appeal pending before the Divisional Court.

The cross-motion for extension of time was granted, but the request to adjourn the appeal was denied.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 with disposition deferred to the appeal panel.

The respondents (former husband and his father) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's (former wife's) claim that a Separation Agreement should be set aside due to material misrepresentation and non-disclosure regarding the former husband's beneficial interest in a family trust.

The applicant opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion for a preservation order.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion for summary judgment, finding that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the materiality of the non-disclosure.

The court also granted partial summary judgment in favour of the applicant, finding that the former husband deliberately failed to disclose his interest in the trust and that the former wife did not have actual knowledge of this non-disclosure.

The cross-motion for a preservation order was dismissed.

The remaining issue for trial is the materiality of the non-disclosure and the appropriate remedy.

This trial decision addresses the termination of spousal support and a claim for a retrospective increase.

The applicant sought to terminate spousal support after 16 years of payments.

The respondent sought a retrospective increase, asserting ongoing need and health issues preventing self-sufficiency.

The court found the respondent's evidence regarding her income, employment, and health to be unreliable, contradictory, and indicative of deliberate efforts to obscure her financial affairs and evade tax.

The court concluded that the respondent had achieved self-sufficiency and was not economically disadvantaged by the marriage or its breakdown to an extent requiring indefinite support.

The applicant's request to terminate spousal support was granted, effective April 30, 2017, and the respondent's claim for a retrospective increase was dismissed.

A $40,500 loan advanced to the respondent for litigation funding was deemed paid by future support payments.

Following settlement of a motion to change child and spousal support at a settlement conference, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had provided financial disclosure supporting a reduction in income months before commencing the motion and had made a compliant offer to settle that closely matched the eventual settlement.

The court held the moving party was the successful party and found the responding party should have accepted the offer earlier after her own expert confirmed the income analysis.

While some of the moving party’s claimed legal fees were found excessive, the court awarded partial recovery including accountant expenses and post-offer costs.

The responding party was ordered to pay costs totaling $18,292.98 plus HST, payable in monthly installments.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion for temporary spousal support in a family law matter.

The applicant (mother) sought temporary spousal support and was awarded $900 per month effective January 1, 2015, though she had requested $1,634 per month.

The respondent (father) opposed the motion and failed to make an offer to settle.

The court found divided success on the motion, with the mother successful in obtaining support but unsuccessful in her attempt to impute additional income to the father.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $5,000, payable at $250 per month, considering the reasonableness of the parties' behaviour, the complexity of the issues, and the father's limited financial circumstances.

The mother brought a motion seeking temporary spousal support of $1,698 per month from the father, effective January 1, 2015.

The father argued he had no ability to pay.

The court found the mother had strong compensatory and non-compensatory claims based on a traditional 17-year marriage and significant income disparity.

While acknowledging the father's substantial child support obligations and therapeutic expenses for the children in care of child protective services, the court determined these did not eliminate his spousal support obligations.

The court ordered temporary spousal support of $900 per month, representing approximately 40% of the parties' net disposable income after accounting for child support payments and additional child-related expenses.

Following a motion concerning non-compliance with undertakings and arrears of child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party had been largely successful in establishing substantial non‑compliance with undertakings and child support obligations, although not all requested relief was granted.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court considered the parties’ conduct, the importance of the issues, the time spent, and the reasonableness of the claimed legal fees.

While the responding party’s conduct was found to be unreasonable, the evidence did not establish bad faith.

Costs were awarded in a reduced amount payable by instalments.

Following a motion in a family law proceeding involving child and spousal support issues, the court addressed the appropriate costs award under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant achieved partial success, obtaining guideline child support for two children, spousal support in the amount sought, and partial interim fees, but was unsuccessful on disclosure and certain other relief.

The court considered the moderate complexity of the motion, the parties’ conduct, the reasonableness of counsel rates, and the time spent on the matter.

The applicant’s offer to settle did not improve upon the court’s decision and was served too late to engage cost consequences.

Balancing the Rule 24 factors, the court awarded reduced costs to the applicant.

A child protection application brought by a child welfare society seeking temporary care and custody of two children (ages 12 and 9) from their parents.

The father opposed the motion and sought custody with society supervision, while the mother supported the society's position.

The court found that both children had suffered significant emotional harm due to high-conflict parenting, with evidence of parental alienation, emotional abuse, and the father's controlling behavior toward the children and mother.

The court determined that the children could not be adequately protected in either parent's care and ordered temporary placement with the society, with access discretionary to the society.

A payment order was imposed on both parents proportionate to their incomes.

Following competing family law motions regarding custody and access, the court determined the issue of costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent was substantially successful in obtaining expanded parenting time including overnight access, telephone access, and shared holidays.

Although both parties made offers to settle, neither met the strict requirements for enhanced cost consequences under Rule 18(14), though they remained relevant to the court’s discretion.

The court considered proportionality, the importance of the parenting issues, the reasonableness of counsel’s rates, and concerns about excessive time spent by the respondent’s legal team.

Costs were awarded to the respondent but significantly reduced from the amount sought.

In a family law motion, the applicant sought retroactive spousal support and interim funding for legal fees and expert disbursements to review the respondent’s financial expert reports.

The court considered evidence of the respondent’s significant income and complex business interests, as well as the applicant’s limited financial resources.

Applying the principles governing interim disbursement orders under rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules, the court emphasized the need to level the playing field where one party controls financial information and resources.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $8,500 per month commencing July 1, 2012 and directed the respondent to pay all section 7 expenses for the children.

The court also ordered an advance of $75,000 for the applicant’s legal fees and expert costs to permit proper testing of the respondent’s financial evidence.