Jonathan Marler

Following a non‑jury trial concerning a vehicle lease agreement, the plaintiff’s claim for damages was dismissed because the alleged debt was extinguished by the defendant’s prior bankruptcy after the plaintiff failed to prove fraud under s. 178(1)(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the plaintiff advanced allegations of fraud.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not justified, finding the amount claimed excessive and noting aspects of the defendant’s conduct that prolonged the trial.

Exercising its discretion under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at a reduced amount.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in the sum of $25,000 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

The parties separated in 2011 after a 12-year marriage.

The applicant sought equalization of net family property and the sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent sought spousal support.

The court determined the value of various disputed assets and liabilities to calculate net family property, ultimately ordering the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $8,053.25 after accounting for post-separation credits.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for spousal support, finding no entitlement under the Bracklow criteria.

Finally, the court ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, dispensing with the respondent's consent due to his reluctance to sell.