Katharine Ann Rajczak

The Applicant sought an order for $500,000 in interim disbursements for legal and valuation costs in a family law proceeding where she was attempting to set aside a separation agreement.

The Respondent opposed the motion.

The court found that the Applicant's claims had merit but criticized her for "splitting her case" in her reply affidavit regarding cost calculations and efforts to secure financing.

The court also noted the Applicant's failure to adequately explain past costs despite favourable awards and her insufficient efforts to self-finance.

Considering the complexity of the Respondent's financial affairs requiring expert review, the court ordered the Respondent to pay $140,000 in interim disbursements, allocated equally between expert and legal fees, payable in two installments.

Following a family law trial addressing spousal support, child support, and property division, the court determined costs after receiving written submissions.

The respondent to the original application sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that she achieved greater success, particularly on the central issue of spousal support.

The court held that success should be assessed holistically, emphasizing the dominant issue in dispute and the parties’ offers to settle.

While success was mixed on several issues, the court found the respondent had greater success on the primary issue of spousal support.

Costs were therefore awarded on a partial indemnity basis with reductions reflecting divided success, counsel rates, duplication from change of counsel, and disparity in the parties’ financial positions.

Following a trial between the parties in a family law proceeding, counsel advised the court that there had been an apparent miscommunication regarding the issuance of a divorce order.

Both parties jointly requested that a divorce order issue.

The court accepted the consent request and issued an addendum directing that a divorce order be granted.

The decision reflects the court’s authority to correct the record where the parties agree that the original outcome did not reflect their joint position.