Penelope Ng

This endorsement addresses costs arising from a motion for temporary spousal support where the Applicant was largely successful.

The Applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the Respondent sought full recovery costs, arguing the Applicant's unreasonable conduct in bringing the motion on short notice should disentitle her to costs.

The court found the Applicant's conduct unreasonable, partly due to her fragile medical condition, but also noted the Respondent's prior failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court determined that the Applicant's unreasonable conduct warranted a reduction in her costs award, but not a denial, and dismissed the Respondent's claim for costs, finding that many of his incurred costs related to overdue financial disclosure.

The Applicant was awarded approximately 50% of her substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support following the parties' separation.

The applicant, who recently underwent a double lung transplant, sought $200,000 per month based on the respondent's high income and their lavish lifestyle during the marriage.

The respondent, a wealthy individual with complex financial affairs, proposed $40,000 per month plus medical expenses.

The court conducted a budget analysis and ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $54,000 per month, plus up to $28,000 per month for a personal care assistant, pending further financial disclosure and a final determination.

The applicant sought the return of her two-year-old son, Flynn, from the respondent under the Hague Convention, after the respondent removed the child from Denmark to Ontario without the applicant's consent.

The respondent relied on a "parenting plan" agreement, signed prior to their move to Denmark, which purported to grant him full custody and allow him to leave Denmark with the child.

The court found the agreement invalid as a cohabitation agreement dealing with custody, contrary to the Family Law Act, and also found it was signed under duress due to the applicant's desperate financial and career circumstances.

The court further ruled that the agreement could not displace the factual determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention.

Based on the parties' settled intention to reside in Denmark for the applicant's two-year employment contract, the respondent's actions to establish EU residency, and the family's routine in Denmark, the court determined that Flynn's habitual residence was Denmark.

Consequently, the child's removal was wrongful, and an order was issued for Flynn's forthwith return to Denmark.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 20-year marriage.

The court determined the validity of a marriage contract that excluded the respondent's interest in a family trust, finding it valid and enforceable.

The court also addressed the tracing of trust funds into the matrimonial home, finding the respondent entitled to exclude a portion of the home's value.

The court ordered a set-off of child support obligations due to a shared custody arrangement, and awarded the applicant a lump sum of $432,000 for spousal support.

The respondent's third-party claims against a family friend for invasion of privacy and interference with parental access were dismissed.