J. Schmidt

This decision addresses the costs of a decade-long family law proceeding.

The Respondent, M.M., sought full recovery of costs, alleging the Applicant, K.K., acted in bad faith.

The court found K.K. engaged in egregious bad faith conduct, including concealing financial information, presenting fabricated evidence, manipulating third parties, and repeatedly breaching court orders to inflict emotional, psychological, and financial harm on M.M. and alienate the children.

Consequently, the court awarded M.M. full recovery of trial-related costs and certain pre-trial costs, totaling $211,441, and stayed the enforcement of previous costs orders against M.M. due to K.K.'s oppressive conduct.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking over $400,000 and possession of the defendant's property following a mortgage default.

The defendant disputed the quantum owed, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide payout statements and that the interest calculations were incorrect.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the exact amount owed and the credibility of the parties constituted a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court also declined to rule on the defendant's oral request to set aside deemed admissions from an unanswered Request to Admit, directing that a formal motion be brought.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 30-year traditional marriage.

The respondent had retired and was receiving a pension.

The applicant sought a lump sum equalization of the pension.

Shortly after learning of this claim, the respondent transferred his unencumbered property to his brother for no consideration.

The court found the respondent and his family members lied under oath and that the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat the applicant's claim.

The court ordered the pension to be divided by a lump sum equalization payment of $356,950.18.

The court declined to order ongoing spousal support to avoid double dipping, as the respondent's only income was the pension being equalized.

The applicant, Carlene Charles, sought interim support from the estate of her late husband, Lennard Charles, as a dependant under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).

Prior to his death from terminal cancer, Mr. Charles significantly altered his will and transferred assets, reducing the estate's value and Ms. Charles's inheritance.

The Estate opposed the motion, arguing Ms. Charles had no need for support given her consistent income, which exceeded her husband's in his final years, and that Mr. Charles's actions were reasonable in light of their separation.

The court applied the test for interim support under s. 64 of the SLRA, requiring the applicant to demonstrate need and entitlement.

The court found Ms. Charles was not in need of support at the time of her husband's death, as her income was higher, and her claims were largely property-based rather than income-based.

The motion for interim support was dismissed, but the Estate was ordered to reimburse Ms. Charles for excess interest paid on a line of credit.