Sandra Majic

This costs decision follows an uncontested family law trial.

The court found that the applicant, Trina Joy Thornhill, engaged in bad faith litigation tactics, including the use of organized pseudolegal commercial arguments and malicious attacks on justice participants.

The court awarded full recovery costs to the respondent, Devon Williams, but reduced the amount claimed to a fair and proportionate sum.

The decision reviews the purposes and principles of costs in family law, the threshold for bad faith, and the court’s discretion in setting costs.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions brought by the plaintiff, Nicole Roach, and the defendants, Estate of Daryl Roach and Rose Roach, concerning undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The underlying dispute involves the plaintiff's claim to an interest in property previously owned by her deceased father and stepmother.

The court ruled on the relevance of various questions and the production of documents, including communications with a property management company and witness contact information, and considered the waiver of solicitor-client privilege regarding city directives.

The defendants brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing it was a SLAPP intended to silence their complaints about the plaintiff selling defective products and violating privacy laws.

The plaintiff's action alleged the defendants perpetrated a fraudulent scheme involving false repair receipts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants failed to meet the threshold burden under s. 137.1(3) because the plaintiff's claim was grounded in fraud, not in any expressions made by the defendants.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This supplementary family law costs endorsement followed a trial concerning spousal support, equalization of net family property, and related matters.

The court held the applicant was successful on all trial issues, that her offers to settle were reasonable, and that the respondent's offers were not.

The court further found the respondent pursued unsupported allegations of fraud and dishonesty throughout trial, amounting to reprehensible conduct warranting elevated costs.

Full indemnity costs were fixed at $56,477.47 and ordered payable from the respondent's share of trust funds held from the sale of the matrimonial home.

Following a 27-year marriage, the court determined corollary family law issues including ongoing spousal support, equalization of net family properties, occupation rent, and security for support.

The respondent alleged undisclosed savings and misappropriation of family funds, but the court found those allegations speculative, relied in part on deemed admissions under Rule 22, and concluded there were no undisclosed accounts.

Applying the SSAG and the objectives in s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, the court awarded indefinite spousal support at the SSAG mid-point and rejected the claim that income should be imputed for deliberate underemployment.

The court also resolved disputed asset valuations and post-separation adjustments, ordered a net payment from the applicant's share of house sale proceeds, dismissed the occupation rent claim, and required life insurance to secure support.

The appellant appealed a spousal support order, arguing the trial judge erred in imputing income to him.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant misrepresented his income, engaged in parental alienation, and was intentionally underemployed.

The court also upheld the income imputed to the respondent and the lack of a sunset date for access monitoring procedures.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.