Sarah Boulby

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis following a motion regarding the respondent's failure to make financial disclosure.

The court found that the respondent demonstrated a wilful disregard of his disclosure obligations, necessitating the motion.

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a full indemnity basis, fixing the quantum at $20,000 all-inclusive.

In this family law trial, the court determined issues of property ownership, equalization, and support following a 16-year marriage.

The court found that the shares of a lucrative cellular phone business were held in a bare trust equally for the applicant and respondent, but ascribed zero value to the business for equalization due to unreliable financial records.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $291,820.05 to the applicant, dismissed both parties' claims for unequal division and damages, and ordered the respondent to pay $700,000 in retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed historical income of $2,000,000.

In the context of a complex family law and related debt action, the parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from questioning.

The corporate respondent was petitioned into bankruptcy shortly before the hearing, triggering an automatic stay.

The court ordered the individual respondents to produce relevant corporate and personal records in their possession, control, or power, finding that the bankruptcy stay did not relieve them of their personal discovery obligations.

The court also ruled on various claims of solicitor-client and litigation privilege, ordering the disclosure of legal fee amounts but protecting the identity of counsel and legal advice.

The respondent brought a motion to vary an interim child and spousal support order, arguing that his business income had significantly declined due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that he had 'better information' as contemplated by the original order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the financial information provided by the respondent was incomplete, lacked independent expert corroboration, and did not constitute the 'better information' required to justify varying an interim support order.

The court also declined to adjust section 7 expenses, leaving that issue for the trial judge.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant sought disclosure of various corporate and financial records relating to businesses owned by the respondent and his family.

The court ordered disclosure of corporate financial records back to 2014 for business valuation purposes, as well as post-March 2020 records relevant to a pending motion to reduce support due to the pandemic.

The court also ordered the respondents to request accounting records from their accountants and to produce commercial leases subject to a confidentiality agreement and notice to landlords.

Following a motion for temporary child and spousal support where success was divided, both parties sought costs.

The applicant husband had successfully established a prima facie entitlement to spousal support and obtained a temporary support order, despite the respondent wife's position that no support should be ordered.

The court found the husband was the successful party on the most important issues.

After considering the parties' behaviour, offers to settle, and the proportionality of the fees, the court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $33,000 to the applicant.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a family law arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator erred in law by finding that child support for his son was 'suspended' rather than 'terminated' during a gap year before university.

The applicant claimed that a termination of child support would have triggered a de novo review of spousal support under the parties' divorce order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that the arbitrator made no error of law and correctly determined that the gap year did not terminate the child support obligation, thereby not triggering the spousal support review.

The respondent successfully opposed the confirmation of a provisional variation order made in Nova Scotia.

She sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent presumptively entitled to costs due to her success and the applicant's conduct.

To afford the out-of-province applicant an opportunity to respond, the court remitted the matter back to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court under section 19(6) of the Divorce Act, granting the applicant 90 days to file written submissions on costs.

The applicant father sought to confirm a Provisional Variation Order from Nova Scotia that varied child support and post-secondary expenses under the Divorce Act.

The respondent mother opposed confirmation, arguing non-compliance with the Divorce Act and disputing the father's evidence regarding the children's residence and her financial contributions.

The court refused to confirm the provisional order, finding that the applicant failed to establish the jurisdictional requirements under section 18(2) of the Divorce Act and failed to prove a material change in circumstances, as the mother had been financially supporting the adult children directly.

Following a motion for interim custody where a shared parenting regime was ordered, the respondent sought costs of $38,966 on a full recovery basis.

The applicant opposed, arguing for no costs or costs reserved to the trial judge.

The court found the respondent was the more successful party but declined to apply Family Law Rule 18 as her offer to settle was not strictly met.

Applying the factors in Family Law Rule 24(11) and the objectives of costs, the court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $17,500 for fees plus HST and disbursements.

Following an appeal, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The parties agreed on the quantum of costs, and the court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent costs of the appeal in the agreed amount of $12,500, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant wife appealed a trial decision ordering her to pay an equalization payment of $117,514.50 and costs to the respondent husband.

The primary issue was the division of the husband's pension, specifically whether the wife was entitled to a share of the pension's growth during their five-and-a-half-year pre-marital cohabitation period based on unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no unjust enrichment as the relationship did not constitute a joint family venture and the wife had not suffered a corresponding deprivation.

The Court also rejected arguments regarding the application of new pension valuation legislation, unequal division of net family property, instalment payments, trial fairness, and costs.