J. Brown

Following a trial on property and spousal support where the applicant was substantially successful, the applicant sought costs of $848,408.89.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by failing to make proper disclosure, which triggered full recovery costs under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed the costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $475,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings for his failure to comply with previous court orders regarding spousal support, child support, and disclosure.

The respondent admitted to withholding support but justified it by claiming the applicant owed him costs from a previous order.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be flagrant, willful, and calculated, noting his lavish lifestyle and unilateral withholding of support.

Instead of immediately striking the pleadings, the court granted the applicant's alternate relief, ordering the respondent to pay $87,403.16 in arrears by a specified date, failing which the applicant could move to strike his pleadings.

The court also made orders regarding the sale of a yacht, post-secondary expenses, and awarded substantial recovery costs to the applicant.

The applicant brought an interim motion for child and spousal support.

Both parties were self-employed.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $100,000 based on her consulting contract.

For the respondent, who owned a holding company with a 50% interest in a dental distribution business, the court applied section 18 of the Child Support Guidelines to attribute pre-tax corporate income to him.

The court found the respondent had effective control over dividend declarations and there was no business reason for retaining the earnings.

The respondent's income was determined to be $820,000.

The court ordered interim spousal support of $16,000 per month and child support of $10,000 per month.

The respondent, having successfully defended an appeal of a Master's order compelling production of documents, sought costs of the appeal.

The respondent claimed up to $36,957.78 on a full indemnity basis, citing the appellants' delay tactics and a last-minute abandoned motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The appellants argued the claimed amounts were disproportionate.

The court agreed the appellants' conduct was problematic but elected to award costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixing the amount at $25,000.

Following earlier reasons on the merits, the court addressed the issue of costs arising from an application relating to enforcement of a prior family law judgment.

The successful applicant sought substantial indemnity costs after alleging the respondents engaged in unreasonable conduct that delayed the proceeding and increased litigation expense, including taking an improper position regarding a mortgage and causing unnecessary disclosure and cross‑examination motions.

The respondents filed no responding submissions on costs.

The court found substantial indemnity costs appropriate under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure due to the respondents’ conduct.

Costs of $19,190.23 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded to the applicant payable forthwith.