Kevin G. Caspersz

The Applicant brought an urgent, ex parte motion for broad interim relief, which led to multiple hearings and a significant number of affidavits.

The motion was eventually settled at a case conference.

The court was asked to determine costs for the motion.

The Applicant was found to be more successful in achieving substantive terms to stabilize the family's situation, but her conduct in initiating the motion without notice and prior to a case conference, despite a lack of true urgency, was deemed unreasonable and led to unnecessary costs.

The court awarded the Applicant partial costs, reduced by half to sanction her procedural conduct, payable upon adjudication or settlement of economic issues at trial.

The appellant husband appealed an order striking his pleading in a matrimonial proceeding concerning equalization of assets.

The motion judge had struck the pleading for non-compliance with disclosure obligations in a consent order.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error by relying on four items not contained in the consent order or the record.

The court set aside the striking order and gave the appellant 30 days to comply with the consent order, particularly regarding an accounting of $300,000 in cash removed from a bank account between 2013 and 2015.

The parties separated after a 30-year cohabitation.

At trial, the court determined the equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The applicant sought to include a $100,000 promissory note as a debt and exclude unvested stock options from his net family property.

The court drew an adverse inference from the applicant's failure to call expert evidence, excluding the promissory note debt and including the post-separation realized value of the stock options.

The court also awarded the respondent ongoing spousal support of $5,200 per month, recognizing both compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement arising from the long-term marriage.

A costs endorsement following the dismissal of an urgent motion brought by the father seeking to set aside a separation agreement, obtain temporary sole custody, terminate the mother's access, and obtain a restraining order.

The father brought the motion ex parte on July 11, 2014, claiming imminent risk to the child's safety.

The court refused to proceed without notice and scheduled a return date.

On July 21, 2014, the motion was dismissed on the basis that it did not meet the test for urgency, as the concerns had been known for months or years and there was no imminent risk of harm.

The court found the father had misled the court regarding ongoing settlement negotiations and the mother's alleged flight risk.

The respondent sought full costs on a solicitor-and-client basis, alleging bad faith.

The court awarded costs to the respondent but on a partial indemnity basis, finding the father's conduct was unreasonable but not in bad faith.

The parties separated and the mother relocated to Stoney Creek for employment, seeking to move the children to Milton.

Both parents brought motions for interim custody and primary residence.

The court applied the test for interim mobility, finding the mother failed to establish compelling reasons that moving the children from their established community, schools, and routines in Port Elgin was in their best interests.

The court ordered interim joint custody with the children's primary residence to be with the father in Port Elgin, and granted the mother liberal access.

Following the dismissal of a motion to certify a proposed class action concerning alleged defects in digital cameras, the court addressed the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought $764,944.37 on a partial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiffs were wholly unsuccessful and had advanced an overbroad claim lacking evidentiary foundation.

The court held that the case did not raise a novel legal issue or matter of public interest that would justify relaxing the ordinary costs regime under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

However, the court found the amount claimed excessive given the scale and complexity of the certification motion and the resources deployed by the defendants.

Balancing proportionality, fairness, and access to justice considerations, the court awarded the defendants $200,000 in costs.