Karen Law

The applicant sought costs of $302,215.33 following successful interim and final preservation motions in a complex family law dispute involving a multi-million-dollar real estate empire.

The court found the respondents' conduct, particularly their failure to comply with disclosure orders and late delivery of materials, to be unreasonable and warranting sanction.

The court rejected the respondents' arguments of divided success and their reliance on offers to settle.

The court declined to pierce the corporate veil to make the individual respondent personally liable for the corporate respondents' costs.

The applicant was awarded total costs of $200,000 on a substantial recovery basis.

This decision addresses the costs of a complex motion concerning the interpretation of an interim preservation order's "usual and ordinary course of business" term.

The applicant sought partial recovery costs of approximately $105,000, while the respondents proposed $25,000.

The court awarded the applicant $98,000, finding them overwhelmingly successful on the key issues.

The court emphasized proportionality, the complexity and high stakes of the litigation, and the respondents' conduct, including significant delays, late affidavit delivery, and a "scorched earth policy" which unnecessarily increased costs.

This motion concerned the interpretation of the term “usual and ordinary course of business” as it applied to corporate respondents in an interim preservation order.

The corporate respondents sought an expansive interpretation to allow significant financial transactions, including leveraging properties and transferring funds for a private mortgage lending business.

The applicant sought a narrow interpretation to preserve assets.

The court applied principles of judicial order interpretation, emphasizing context and purpose, and found the respondents' proposed interpretation would negate the preservation order's effect.

The court adopted a narrow definition, limiting “usual and ordinary course of business” to day-to-day operations and management, explicitly excluding large-scale asset encumbrance or intercorporate fund transfers for investment.

All other relief sought by the respondents was dismissed.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions for an interim parenting schedule for their 13-year-old child.

The mother sought an equal shared parenting schedule, while the father sought a schedule giving the mother approximately 35% of parenting time.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the child's recent ADHD and anxiety diagnoses, as well as the mother's return to Toronto from Rhode Island to support the child.

Considering the child's expressed preference for more time with the mother and the need for stability, the court ordered an interim week-about shared parenting schedule.

The applicant father sought to review and terminate spousal support and adjust child support pursuant to a 2012 Separation Agreement.

The respondent mother sought a retroactive increase in support to 2013, alleging the father hid income from the sale of his business.

The court found no blameworthy conduct by the father and denied the retroactive claim due to the mother's failure to give effective notice.

The court imputed $390,000 in annual income to the mother, finding she was intentionally underemployed and failed to utilize her substantial investment portfolio to generate income, despite her obligations under the Separation Agreement.

Spousal support was ordered to terminate after one additional year, and child support was adjusted prospectively based on the parties' current incomes.