Michael Chilco

This motion concerned the consolidation and case management of three interconnected legal proceedings: a family law matter and two civil actions.

The family law proceeding involved claims for child support, equalization, and setting aside a separation agreement due to alleged undisclosed commissions received by the former spouse.

The two civil actions, brought by Halton and Solution, alleged fraudulent diversion of commissions by the former spouse and his common-law partner's company.

The court granted the motion for consolidation and case management, finding significant factual overlap, a high likelihood of inconsistent findings if tried separately, and that consolidation would lead to a more just, expeditious, and cost-effective resolution.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicants (maternal grandparents) in a motion to change child support brought by the respondent father.

The respondents' motion to reduce child support from $700 per month was dismissed, and the temporary order was made final.

The applicants sought full recovery of costs totaling $21,175, but the court awarded $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The court considered the respondents' unreasonable conduct, including attempts to complain to police and the Law Society, failure to provide complete financial disclosure, and abandonment of the trial on the hearing date, which caused unnecessary legal expenses.

Following a prior decision, the court considered submissions regarding costs.

The applicant’s reply largely reiterated earlier arguments but raised an objection to awarding costs for a settlement conference.

The court agreed that costs should not be awarded in relation to the settlement conference.

Ultimately, the court confirmed its earlier ruling that there should be no order as to costs.

Following settlement of all substantive issues in a family proceeding, the remaining dispute concerned costs related to a motion for child support.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of approximately $13,000, while the respondent sought costs of approximately $18,000, alleging the applicant had acted unreasonably.

The court found the income figure of $35,000, accepted by both parties, to be reasonable and rejected the argument that the applicant’s conduct alone caused the delay.

The judge noted that the respondent’s conduct could equally have contributed to prolonging the proceedings.

The court concluded that neither party should recover costs.