Frank Mendicino

The applicant father sought costs after a successful motion for temporary parenting time.

The respondent mother also sought costs.

The court found that neither party's offers to settle met the technical requirements for costs consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

While there was divided success on the underlying motion, the father was deemed the more successful party overall.

The court considered the parties' conduct, particularly the mother's unreasonable allegations and interference with parenting time, and awarded the father $6,000 in costs, payable monthly, dismissing the mother's costs claim.

The parties separated after a seven-year marriage.

The father sought joint decision-making and shared parenting time, while the mother sought sole decision-making and reduced parenting time for the father.

The court awarded joint decision-making, finding the mother could not be trusted with sole authority due to her history of restricting the father's access.

The child's primary residence remained with the mother.

The court imputed the self-employed father's income at $82,500 for child support purposes, rejecting his declared income due to unsubstantiated business deductions.

The father was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $146,104.18.

The mother was found entitled to non-compensatory spousal support, but no amount was awarded as priority was given to child support.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was largely successful in obtaining an equalization payment and spousal support, the applicant sought costs of $589,650.95 on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the costs were excessive, particularly regarding the use of two counsel at trial.

The court found that while the factual complexity justified two counsel to a limited extent, the lack of explanation for specific tasks warranted a reduction for duplication.

The court fixed costs at $300,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The parties separated after a 14-year marriage.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property, spousal support, and retroactive child support.

The respondent claimed a constructive trust interest in several of the applicant's properties and businesses, and brought a consolidated civil action for unjust enrichment and damages related to a business eviction.

The court dismissed the respondent's trust and civil claims, finding no unjust enrichment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $1,803,824.61, largely preserving the applicant's inheritance exclusions.

The court also awarded the applicant $750,000.00 in lump-sum spousal support due to her health condition and the need for a clean break, but dismissed claims for retroactive child support.

Following a five-day family trial where the applicant was entirely successful, she sought costs of approximately $350,000 on a full recovery basis.

The court found that the respondent engaged in bad faith conduct, including hiding income, destroying evidence, and fraudulently conveying assets to his mother to defeat the applicant's equalization claim.

Consequently, the court ordered costs on a full recovery basis under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

After adjusting for proportionality and disallowing fees for a second counsel, the court awarded the applicant $250,000 in costs.

Following a 19-year marriage, the court determined unresolved financial issues including income for support, equalization, alleged fraudulent conveyances, lump sum spousal support, and a requested vesting order over the matrimonial home.

The respondent, a self-employed business partner who admitted past undeclared cash income, was found not credible, and the court preferred a lifestyle analysis to impute annual income of $142,000 while imputing minimum wage income to the applicant.

Transfers totalling $349,000 to the respondent's mother during the breakdown of the marriage were found to be fraudulent conveyances and subject to a resulting trust, bringing that value back into net family property.

The court ordered child support of $3,066 monthly, 74.6% contribution to qualifying section 7 expenses, lump sum spousal support of $335,465, and equalization of $342,070.

Because of repeated support defaults and anticipated non-compliance, the respondent's equity in the matrimonial home was vested in the applicant, and the restraining order claim was dismissed.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking sole custody, a restraining order, and a no-contact order against the respondent mother, following an alleged assault involving one of their children.

The mother had been criminally charged and was subject to an undertaking prohibiting contact with the children.

The court dismissed the urgent motion, finding no ongoing urgency as the children were safe with the father and the mother's undertaking already provided the requested protective measures.

The court encouraged the parties to discuss temporary arrangements for contact, decision-making, and child support, noting that any future urgent motions would need to meet established criteria.

This endorsement addresses a costs motion following an unsuccessful motion by Ms. Cannone-Haddad to strike Mr. Haddad's pleadings or for security for costs.

Mr. Haddad, the successful party, sought $16,861.86 in costs on a full recovery basis.

Ms. Cannone-Haddad argued for no costs or an offset against child support arrears.

The court, applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, acknowledged Mr. Haddad's entitlement to costs but found the requested amount excessive and not warranting full recovery.

Considering the parties' financial difficulties, Mr. Haddad's child support arrears, and the necessity of Ms. Cannone-Haddad's initial motion to compel disclosure, the court awarded Mr. Haddad $5,000 in costs, payable after the resolution of outstanding issues.

Following a summary judgment motion where the respondent successfully argued that no advances were made under a valid mortgage, the self-represented respondent sought costs of $46,188.

The added respondents argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court applied the Family Law Rules and principles for self-represented litigants, fixing the respondent's hourly rate at $100 rather than the claimed $200-$300.

The court ordered the added respondents to pay costs of $18,000 to the respondent.

The added parties (the wife's parents) brought a motion for summary judgment to declare the validity of a $400,000 mortgage registered against the matrimonial home.

The husband argued the funds advanced by the parents over several years were gifts, not loans, and that he signed the mortgage under duress.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, determining on a balance of probabilities that the funds were gifts at the time they were transferred.

Although the mortgage itself was validly executed without duress or undue influence, the court held that no advances had been made under it, effectively granting summary judgment in favour of the husband.