Kiteley

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis following successful motions regarding the respondent's breach of solicitor-client privilege.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, noting the complexity of the issues and the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.

The court reduced the applicant's claimed fees by 15% for unrelated services but ordered the respondent to pay $47,328.90 in costs immediately, rejecting his request to pay from the future sale of the matrimonial home.

The moving party mother brought a motion for temporary child support, section 7 expenses, and interim disbursements to obtain an expert income report.

The responding party father, who is self-employed, persistently failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and claimed an income of approximately $28,000, despite having expenses of over $53,000.

The court imputed the father's income at $53,076 based on his stated expenses and ordered him to pay table child support and 70% of the child's post-secondary expenses.

The court also ordered the father to pay $15,000 in interim disbursements to allow the mother to retain an expert to determine his true income.

The parties brought cross-motions in a family law proceeding.

The self-represented applicant sought retroactive spousal support, interim disbursements, further disclosure, and leave to amend her application.

The respondent sought an order for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home and temporary exclusive possession.

The court permitted the applicant to amend her application but dismissed her other requests, noting inconsistencies in her positions regarding the respondent's pension and retroactive support.

The court also dismissed the respondent's motion for sale and exclusive possession, finding a sale would prejudice the applicant's claim for a vesting order.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The respondent father brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order that struck his pleadings for failing to provide financial disclosure and pay child support.

The court found that the previous judge only intended to strike pleadings related to financial issues, not parenting issues, making the broad order an error.

Applying the test for setting aside a default judgment, the court found the father had a plausible explanation for his default and an arguable case.

The court set aside the order in its entirety, granted brief periods of unsupervised access, and temporarily suspended child support enforcement to allow the father to stabilize his finances and pay for supervised access.

The applicant brought a motion to compel compliance with outstanding orders, for contempt, and to strike the respondent's Answer and Claim following chronic non-compliance with financial disclosure obligations.

The court found that the respondent had failed to purge his previous contempt and imposed a $300,000 penalty.

Due to the respondent's ongoing failure to comply with court orders and the Family Law Rules, the court struck his Answer and Claim, limiting his future participation in the proceedings, and awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's Answer and Claim and to find him in contempt for his ongoing failure to comply with multiple court orders regarding financial disclosure and costs.

The respondent argued he had purged his contempt to the extent possible, citing health issues, lack of funds, and reliance on third parties.

The court found the respondent had not met his obligations and had provided inadequate excuses.

However, noting some recent progress and the respondent's claim that his health issues had resolved, the court adjourned the motion to strike and the contempt motion, giving the respondent one final opportunity to comply with a strict timetable for disclosure and payment of costs.

The applicant mother brought an application to compel the respondent father to pay retroactive child support, post-secondary education expenses, and section 7 special and extraordinary expenses for their two children.

The parties had entered into Minutes of Settlement in 1999.

The court found that the mother's delay in seeking retroactive support was not unreasonable given the father's lack of cooperation.

The court ordered the father to pay $9,792 in retroactive child support for the older child, a lump sum of $16,000 for her post-secondary education expenses, and $5,315 for retroactive section 7 expenses, plus costs.

The parties separated after a 31-year marriage.

The applicant sought a divorce on the grounds of cruelty, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the applicant failed to prove cruelty and granted the divorce on the basis of a one-year separation.

The court imputed an income of $15,000 per year to the applicant, finding she had an obligation to contribute to her own support despite her claims of medical issues and abuse.

The respondent was ordered to pay ongoing spousal support of $2,734 per month plus a percentage of his bonuses, and to designate the applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary of his life insurance policy.

The court also resolved outstanding equalization issues, including denying the deduction of the applicant's Legal Aid lien and contingent taxes on RRSPs.