Haiyun Wang

This is a costs decision following the determination of the date of separation in a family law proceeding.

The applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $15,377.04 to the date of her offer to settle (November 21, 2023) and $30,662.55 thereafter, plus disbursements of $3,409.77.

The respondent, who was self-represented, did not provide costs submissions despite directions from the court.

The court found the applicant was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party, but limited the award to costs related to the trial of the separation date issue rather than the entire proceeding.

The court awarded $30,000 plus HST ($3,900) for a total of $33,900, finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the circumstances.

This decision concerns the continuation of refusals motions in complex insurance litigation involving environmental claims at 26 mining sites operated by Vale Canada Limited.

The court addresses the proportionality and sufficiency of discovery efforts, the organization and resolution of thousands of discovery refusals, and sets out directions for further production and inquiry.

The ruling emphasizes the need for balance and proportionality in discovery, especially in large-scale litigation, and provides a framework for resolving outstanding discovery disputes ahead of trial.

The court determines the date of separation for the purposes of divorce, equalization, and related relief between Mei Yang and Weidong Xie.

The applicant asserted a separation date of June 20, 2022, while the respondent claimed December 31, 2014.

After a detailed review of the parties’ credibility, documentary evidence, and the objective factors relevant to separation, the court finds the applicant’s evidence more credible and sets the date of separation as June 20, 2022.

This case concerned the validity and enforceability of a separation agreement between former spouses, specifically regarding property division, financial disclosure, and parenting time for their son.

The applicant sought to set aside provisions related to property valuation, arguing that formal appraisals were intended and that the respondent failed to make proper financial disclosure.

The respondent opposed these claims but sought to set aside parenting time provisions that would shift the son's primary residence to the applicant upon turning 12, citing the son's stated wishes.

The court upheld the separation agreement as valid and enforceable in its entirety, dismissing both parties' primary claims to set aside specific provisions.

Following a nine-day family law trial involving property trust claims, equalization, and spousal support, both parties sought substantial or partial indemnity costs.

The court reviewed the trial outcomes, noting that success was divided across the various complex issues.

Neither party's offers to settle met the conditions for full indemnity costs under the Family Law Rules, nor did they significantly alter the assessment of success.

Finding no unreasonable conduct by either side, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The parties separated after a short marriage.

The applicant claimed a 50 percent beneficial interest in three properties purchased in the respondent's name during the marriage, relying on resulting trust and unjust enrichment principles.

The court found the applicant had a 50 percent interest in one property (Front Street condo) based on a resulting trust, but dismissed the trust claims for the other two properties, finding that funds advanced by the respondent's parents were a gift to him alone, and funds advanced by a family friend were a loan to him alone.

The court ordered the respondent to repay loans to the applicant's parents, pay an equalization payment of $72,080.16, and pay lump-sum non-compensatory spousal support of $26,864.

Following a trial regarding the parties' respective interests in a residential property, the respondent was the successful party and sought costs.

The respondent had made an offer to settle that exceeded the applicant's recovery at trial.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer, and on a full recovery basis thereafter pursuant to Family Law Rule 18(14), fixing the total costs payable by the applicant at $21,520.61 after deducting costs for a prior motion.

The parties, former common-law partners, disputed the division of proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned home.

The applicant held a 99% interest on title, which she claimed reflected her sole contribution to the down payment and closing costs.

The respondent, who held a 1% interest, argued the ownership structure was solely to maximize a first-time homebuyer land transfer tax rebate and that they intended to be equal owners.

The court found that the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and that the respondent's payment of the mortgage and other contributions established a constructive trust for a 49% interest.

The net sale proceeds were ordered to be divided equally, subject to adjustments for post-separation expenses and a joint line of credit debt attributed solely to the respondent.

The plaintiff requested a case conference to address the defendant's counsel's illness and the lack of a pre-trial conference waiver for a scheduled summary trial.

The court adjourned the summary trial, vacated the original dates, and rescheduled it for the week of May 25, 2021.

The court also directed counsel to schedule a pre-trial conference and exempted the action from mandatory mediation under Rule 75.1.04.

The defendants brought motions under Rule 21.01 to strike statements of claim in two actions commenced by the plaintiff.

The claims sought damages for emotional distress and relief removing a writ of seizure and sale, while repeating allegations relating to a partnership dispute previously litigated in Small Claims Court and upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court held that the plaintiff’s new actions raised the same issues or matters that could have been addressed in the earlier proceeding.

The claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the prior judgments and an abuse of process.

Both actions were dismissed and costs awarded to the defendants.

Following a family law hearing, the court invited written submissions from the parties regarding the proper calculation of child support arrears.

The applicant provided written submissions.

The respondent was granted additional time to file responding submissions.

The endorsement provides procedural directions regarding the submission deadline before the court determines the arrears calculation.

The applicant sought a divorce, equalization relating to a condominium property in China, and access.

The respondent brought a cross-application seeking child support and arrears.

The court found no evidentiary basis that the applicant had any interest in the foreign property and dismissed the equalization claim.

Income was imputed to the applicant for certain years due to evidence of undeclared business income, and retroactive child support arrears were ordered from the date of separation together with ongoing support and contributions to extraordinary expenses.

Following a family law trial involving child support, section 7 expenses, and distribution of proceeds from the matrimonial home, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing that the opposing party behaved unreasonably during the litigation and that a settlement offer had been exceeded at trial.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the self‑represented party generally conducted himself reasonably, except for some disclosure deficiencies, and that the settlement offer had not been properly placed before the court under the Family Law Rules.

After reviewing the bill of costs and the overall circumstances, the court awarded a reduced lump‑sum costs amount payable from the opposing party’s share of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.

Following separation, the applicant sought custody, equalization of net family property, and sale of the matrimonial home.

Custody had previously been determined in favour of the respondent prior to trial, and the divorce had already been granted.

The remaining issues concerned distribution of the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home and determination of child support, including arrears and section 7 expenses.

The court ordered equal distribution of the sale proceeds, determined the payor parent’s income based partly on admissions and imputation, and ordered guideline child support with arrears.

The court declined to grant a lump sum support award and rejected a request for security for anticipated post-secondary expenses as speculative.