L. Mongillo

The respondent husband brought a motion to remove the applicant wife's counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

Prior to being retained by the wife, the wife's counsel had multiple discussions with the husband's counsel regarding the strategic use of confidential information related to the valuation of the wife's business interests.

Applying the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin, the court found that confidential strategic information had been imparted and that a reasonably-informed member of the public would not be satisfied that no use of this information would occur.

The motion to remove counsel was granted.

The respondent mother brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The applicant father claimed an income of $12,000 to $21,000, despite reporting over $125,000 in annual expenses and having previously declared over $1.2 million in assets on an immigration application.

The court found the father's financial disclosure to be vitiated by contradictions and imputed his income at $221,490 based on his unfunded expenses.

The court ordered the father to pay temporary table child support of $1,792 per month and temporary spousal support of $3,400 per month, retroactive to June 1, 2016.

Following family law proceedings, both parties claimed substantial success and sought costs under the Family Law Rules.

The court emphasized that costs remain discretionary and reviewed the parties’ conduct and credibility throughout the litigation.

The evidence revealed significant credibility concerns and conduct suggesting disregard for legal obligations, financial transparency, and prior court orders by both parties.

Given the pervasive lack of candour and improper conduct on both sides, the court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of either party.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.