Kenneth B. Fraser

The applicant was successful on a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home and sought costs of $8,000.

The respondent opposed, citing her unemployment and the applicant's failure to pay support.

The court fixed costs at $6,500, finding the respondent's resistance to the sale unreasonable but reducing the amount to exclude time spent on a related support motion.

Given the applicant's substantial admitted support arrears, the court ordered that the costs not be payable until all issues in the case are finally resolved to allow for potential set-off.

The applicant father brought a motion for the sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The parties separated in 2017 and the respondent mother remained in the home.

The court found no malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct by the applicant that would defeat his prima facie right to a sale under the Partition Act.

The court ordered the home to be listed and sold, with a $100,000 holdback from the applicant's share of the net proceeds to secure arrears of child and spousal support.

The applicant sought a divorce under Part 2 of the Civil Marriage Act, which allows Canadian courts to grant divorces to non-resident spouses whose marriage is not recognized in their state of residence.

The parties, who reside in Hong Kong, separated four months before the application was issued.

The court found the application deficient because the Act requires parties to be separated for at least one year before making the application.

Additionally, the court held that expert evidence is required to prove the foreign law that Hong Kong does not recognize the marriage.

The applicant was granted time to file further evidence before the application would be dismissed.

Following an interim family law motion regarding custody and access, the court determined costs.

The applicant sought over $32,000 in full recovery costs after obtaining an interim joint custody order with a parenting schedule primarily placing the children with her and permitting one child to attend school in a new location.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court held the applicant achieved some success and was presumptively entitled to costs, but rejected allegations of bad faith and found both parties contributed to excessive costs through voluminous affidavit material and litigation conduct.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and proportionality under the Family Law Rules, the court found the amount claimed to be disproportionate and reduced costs substantially.