Michael D. Lannan

The applicant sought costs following a family law trial regarding the division of equity in the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondent's demand for immediate payment of his half-share unreasonable, as it would have forced the sale of the children's home.

Although the applicant did not serve an Offer to Settle and was legally aided, she was the substantially successful party.

The court awarded the applicant $22,500 in costs, to be set off against the respondent's share of the equity.

Following a family law trial involving custody, support, and equalization issues, the court determined costs that had been reserved from earlier interim motions.

The respondent/wife was largely successful at trial, obtaining sole custody of the children and greater child and spousal support than the applicant/husband had proposed.

Success was divided on the issue of equalization due to insufficient evidence regarding alleged property holdings.

The court discounted the costs claimed for the unsuccessful equalization litigation and awarded a reduced amount of costs.

Costs of $22,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes were ordered payable by the applicant/husband, enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office.

Following a motion concerning clarification of the nature of the relationship between the parties in a family law property dispute, the court invited written submissions on costs.

The responding party filed no submissions.

The moving party submitted that each party should bear their own costs as the motion was necessary to clarify the relationship before addressing property issues.

The court accepted the moving party’s position and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a declaration that an Islamic Sharia marriage ceremony conducted in Ontario without a marriage licence or registration was not legally valid, and that the parties were merely common-law spouses.

The court considered whether the marriage could nevertheless be deemed valid under s. 31 of the Marriage Act where parties intended to comply with Ontario law but failed to meet formal statutory requirements.

Relying on appellate authority interpreting the statutory deeming provision, the court found that the parties acted in good faith, were not legally disqualified from marrying, cohabited as a married couple, and intended their ceremony to comply with the law governing marriages in Ontario.

The court held that the marriage was deemed valid and that the parties were spouses for purposes of equalization of net family property under the Family Law Act.