Jesse Rosenberg

The Applicant brought a motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and the Respondent brought a motion for an order compelling global mediation.

The court granted the Applicant's motion, finding that it was in the best interests of the children to remain in the only home they had known without disruption.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion for global mediation, finding no agreement between the parties to globally mediate the matter.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support and interim disbursements.

The core issue was determining the respondent's income, as he claimed an income of $200,000 to $260,000 while the applicant argued it was over $1.4 million based on pre-tax corporate income and benefits.

The court found the respondent's Line 150 income was not the fairest determination and fixed his income at $707,500 for temporary support purposes, applying sections 16, 17, and 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court also ordered the respondent to provide a fair market valuation of his business interests, finding them relevant to spousal support despite a marriage contract.

The respondent father brought a motion to enforce the terms of a final order and sought costs.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and also sought costs, arguing she was substantially successful because the father only succeeded on two of the eleven terms he sought to enforce.

The court found the father was the successful party, noting that the breach of any term in a court order is one breach too many.

However, the court apportioned costs for divided success, discounting the father's partial indemnity costs claim by 60 percent and awarding him $6,400.

Following a motion concerning a construction lien priority dispute, the court determined the issue of costs between the parties.

The responding party was the successful party on the only issue in dispute and relied on a Rule 49 offer to seek partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The moving party argued it should receive costs because the responding party conceded a minor adjustment to the holdback amount prior to the hearing.

The court rejected that argument, holding the concession did not justify depriving the successful party of costs.

Applying the factors governing costs assessment, including those articulated in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court fixed costs at $17,300 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.