Michael Douglas Heikkinen

The Court rendered a costs endorsement following a six-day trial in a family law matter.

The applicant wife was found to be the successful party, having obtained a judgment more favourable than her offer to settle, which included an equalization payment and lump-sum spousal support.

The court awarded the wife $65,000 in costs (inclusive of HST and disbursements) against the husband and his company, Local Motion Transportation Inc., out of $147,642.86 claimed.

The court declined to make a vesting order for costs but ruled that $32,500 of the awarded costs would be enforceable through the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) as support-related costs, given the husband's assignment into bankruptcy.

The court considered the parties' conduct, the complexity of issues, and proportionality, but did not find the husband acted in bad faith to warrant full indemnity costs.

The parties separated after a 31-year traditional marriage.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property, spousal support, and a vesting order against a property owned by the respondent's corporation.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 to the respondent due to unreported cash income from his taxi business and non-compliance with financial disclosure.

The court ordered an equalization payment of $168,132.53 and a lump sum spousal support payment of $50,000.

Due to the respondent's history of defying court orders, the court pierced the corporate veil and granted a vesting order over the corporately-owned property to satisfy the equalization payment.

Following a family law trial concerning spousal support and contractual issues, the successful party sought costs after serving an Offer to Settle that was more favourable to the opposing party than the ultimate trial award.

The court considered Family Law Rule 18(14) and the time‑computation provisions of Family Law Rule 3(1) in determining whether the offer was served at least seven days before trial.

Applying the rule for counting days and drawing guidance from Rule 3.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held the offer satisfied the timing requirement.

Even if it had not, the court would exercise discretion under Family Law Rule 18(16) to award elevated costs given the significant disparity between the offer and the trial outcome.

The respondent was awarded $48,500 in costs inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The respondent sought to set aside a marriage contract and subsequent separation agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, or alternatively obtain spousal support under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act despite contractual waivers.

The court found no material financial non-disclosure but concluded that the spousal support waivers in both agreements were obtained through undue influence and misrepresentation and were improvident in light of the parties’ circumstances.

The property provisions of the agreements were upheld, but the spousal support waivers were set aside.

Applying the Miglin framework, the court determined the agreements did not substantially comply with the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The respondent was awarded lump-sum and ongoing periodic spousal support.