J. Rosenberg

Following a family law trial, the respondent sought $250,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, while the self-represented applicant argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court found that the respondent was significantly more successful overall and that the applicant engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct, including failing to disclose assets and taking untenable positions.

The court awarded the respondent $165,000 in costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable from the applicant's share of the matrimonial home sale proceeds.

The parties separated after an 11-year marriage and sought resolution of numerous financial issues, including equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, child support, spousal support, and occupation rent.

The court interpreted their Marriage Contract to allow for equalization while excluding specific properties.

The court calculated the equalization payment, ordered post-separation adjustments for carrying costs and joint debts, and awarded the respondent occupation rent for the applicant's exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court also imputed an income of $80,000 to the applicant due to intentional underemployment, dismissed her claim for spousal support, and calculated retrospective child support and section 7 expenses, ultimately resulting in a net payment owed by the applicant to the respondent.

The applicant in a family law proceeding brought a motion to amend her pleadings to add her spouse's corporation as a third party, seeking repayment of alleged demand loans.

The corporation opposed the motion, arguing that the limitation period had expired because the original family law application constituted a demand for payment.

The court allowed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the original application, which named only the spouse, constituted a clear and unequivocal demand to the corporation itself.

The applicant was permitted to amend her reply to add the corporation as a party.

The applicant was successful on a motion regarding the residential schedule of the parties' daughter and sought costs of $50,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

While the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs due to his success and beating his offer to settle, the court found that both parties had engaged in blameworthy conduct that escalated the conflict contrary to the child's best interests.

Consequently, the court reduced the applicant's cost recovery and awarded him $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.