Jonathan S. Solomon

The respondent, Ms. Soltani, sought full-recovery costs after successfully defending a motion related to the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant, Mr. Rastkar, opposed, arguing divided success and Ms. Soltani's conduct.

The court found Ms. Soltani substantially successful on the primary issues of the motion and determined that Mr. Rastkar's conduct was unreasonable, warranting an elevated costs award.

While Ms. Soltani requested $7,653.49, the court reduced the award to a fixed amount of $5,000 due to concerns about potential duplication of work in her billings, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness.

This motion addressed a dispute over the sale of the parties’ matrimonial home.

The Applicant sought to have his purchase offer deemed valid or to have the home listed without the Respondent's involvement, alleging the Respondent obstructed the sale and breached court orders/agreements by refusing his offer and delaying the sale.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the Applicant caused delays and she was entitled to seek fair market value.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motion, finding the Respondent did not obstruct the sale or breach orders, and provided a path forward for the sale, including setting a new listing price and allowing both parties to bid.

This case involved a continuation of a confirmation hearing under the Divorce Act regarding a New Brunswick provisional order to resume spousal support for the respondent due to post-traumatic stress disorder.

The applicant, the former husband, challenged the confirmation.

The court found that the complex medical expert evidence concerning the respondent's PTSD and its causation could not be adequately assessed in a bifurcated hearing, thus failing to meet the threshold requirements of section 18(2) of the Divorce Act.

Consequently, the provisional order was not confirmed, but the respondent retained the right to bring a new application to vary without resorting to section 18.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a trial where the parties could not agree.

The applicant sought costs, arguing she was the successful party, while the respondent claimed divided success and financial hardship.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, having prevailed on major issues including custody, income imputation, child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court also found the respondent's conduct, including attempts to mislead the court regarding his income and assets, amounted to bad faith.

Considering the Family Law Rules, offers to settle, trial positions, and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour, the court fixed costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $60,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant law firm sought costs of $2,500 for a solicitor's lien application regarding a direction to pay from the proceeds of a real estate sale.

The matter was resolved in the applicant's favour on the morning of the hearing.

The respondent argued the application was unnecessary as the new solicitor had agreed to hold funds in trust.

The court awarded costs of $750 plus HST to the applicant, noting the application was successful but may not have been necessary.