Kim Larsen

The applicant wife brought a motion for extensive financial disclosure from the respondent husband regarding his personal finances and interests in over twenty companies.

The court ordered the husband to provide the requested disclosure, including a proper financial statement, tax returns, and corporate records, by specified deadlines.

The court dismissed the wife's request for non-party production orders as premature.

The court also ordered the husband to retain a business valuation expert by a set date, failing which it would consider appointing the wife's expert as a court-appointed expert.

The applicant, Ms. Hebo, sought supplementary costs of $25,000 following a family law trial and an initial costs decision, and requested that costs awarded for support issues be made a charge on the former matrimonial home.

The respondent, Mr. Putros, opposed supplementary costs.

The court found that Ms. Hebo's offer to settle did not meet the strict requirements of Family Law Rule 18(14) for full indemnity but could be considered under Rule 18(16) and Rule 24.

The court determined that $8,000 was a reasonable and proportionate amount for supplementary costs, allocating $3,000 to support issues (enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office) and $5,000 to equalization (charged on the former matrimonial home).

The request for a charge on the matrimonial home for support costs was denied, as the Family Law Act does not provide for such relief for support orders, and the underlying reason was to secure a litigation funder who was not a party.

The parties settled a motion by consent temporary order, leaving only the issue of costs.

Both the applicant and respondent sought costs.

The court reviewed Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and relevant case law on costs after settlement agreements.

The court found no clear "winner" or "loser" and determined that neither party's behaviour rose to the level of unreasonableness warranting costs against them.

Given the divided success and principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs after a 10-day family law trial, claiming $203,059.19.

The respondent conceded $50,841.61.

The court awarded the applicant $103,000 in costs, finding the respondent's behavior unreasonable and in bad faith, particularly regarding non-payment of spousal support and presenting incredible evidence.

The costs were allocated between support issues ($40,000) and equalization ($63,000), with the latter secured as a charge on the matrimonial home.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 12-year marriage.

The applicant sought a constructive trust over the matrimonial home to capture its post-separation increase in value, equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

The court dismissed the constructive trust claim, finding a prior agreement provided a juristic reason for the respondent to retain the post-separation increase in value.

However, the court ordered the respondent to pay over $120,000 in equalization, significant arrears for child and spousal support, and ongoing spousal support, finding the respondent and his family members lacked credibility regarding alleged debts and financial contributions.

The maternal family members of a four-year-old child sought a motion for consistent, unsupervised access to the child following the death of the child's mother.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing that as the sole surviving parent, he should retain discretion over access decisions.

The court found that while the father had legitimate concerns about the family's conduct, his decision to restrict access was partially arbitrary and not in the child's best interests.

The court granted limited unsupervised access to the child's grandmother and aunt, with strict conditions regarding conduct and communication.

The court also struck paragraphs of the father's application containing defamation claims, finding the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over such claims, and refused to transfer the proceeding to Superior Court.