Nadine Waldman

The father successfully moved to adjourn a family law trial after his lawyer was removed from the record.

The mother sought full indemnity costs of $6,251.68 for the motion and costs thrown away, relying on an offer to settle.

The court found the mother's offer did not trigger Rule 18 consequences because it included non-severable terms and a pre-determined costs component.

The court also declined to award costs thrown away due to a lack of particulars regarding wasted preparation.

Finding divided success on the motion, the court ordered no costs.

The applicant father, a civil litigation lawyer with no family law experience, sought to adjourn his family court trial to retain new counsel after his previous lawyer was removed from the record.

The respondent mother opposed a lengthy adjournment, emphasizing the need for timely resolution, particularly concerning the child's proposed relocation to Ireland and the upcoming school year.

The court granted a shorter adjournment than requested by the father, rescheduling the trial to June 2024, making it peremptory on the father, and conditionally delaying the sale of the matrimonial home to align with the new trial date, balancing the father's need for representation with the child's best interests and the mother's right to timely resolution.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant to travel with the parties' child without the respondent's consent.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably by withholding consent and sending profane texts, thereby forcing the applicant to bring the motion.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and considering the respondent's ability to pay, the court awarded the applicant costs at its "going rate" for such matters.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking financial disclosure and a valuation of the respondent husband's interest in a corporation as of the date of separation.

The husband argued the asset was excluded property gifted by his father and that a formal valuation was disproportionate to its value, which he claimed was equal to the dividends he received.

The court held that the husband had the onus to provide credible evidence of the asset's value and ordered him to retain a Chartered Business Valuator at his own expense, noting that the issue of whether the asset was excluded remained in dispute.

The mother brought a motion to strike the father's pleadings due to his persistent failure to comply with court orders regarding financial disclosure and payment of costs.

The court granted the motion to strike the pleadings, noting the father's cavalier attitude towards his obligations.

However, the court declined to immediately impute an income of $180,000 to the father as requested by the mother, instead giving him a final opportunity to provide proper corporate and personal tax disclosure.

The court also dismissed the mother's claim to set aside the property provisions of their separation agreement based on the father's non-disclosure of a tax refund, as the agreement contained a clear waiver of financial disclosure.

The father appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order granting the mother sole custody and primary residence of their child, as well as an $8,000 costs award.

The father argued the hearing judge erred on the facts, prejudiced him during cross-examination, improperly proceeded with a focused hearing, and erred by not appointing the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence, no prejudice in the judge's conduct, and that the father failed to object to the focused hearing or request OCL involvement in a timely manner.

The costs award was also upheld, and the father was ordered to pay $9,500 in costs for the appeal.

A party brought a motion seeking costs personally against his former lawyer under Rule 24(9) of the Family Law Rules after incurring significant expenses due to the lawyer’s failure to protect the party’s procedural rights in a family proceeding.

The lawyer had been retained while the client was already in default but failed to notify opposing counsel, file an answer, or take steps to secure consent or an order permitting late filing.

As a result, the opposing party proceeded toward an uncontested trial, causing unnecessary litigation steps and costs.

Applying the two‑stage analysis for costs against counsel, the court found the lawyer’s conduct negligently caused unnecessary costs and was inconsistent with the goals of the justice system.

The court exercised its discretion to order the lawyer personally to reimburse the client for $14,500 in costs.

Following a family law motion, the respondent mother sought full recovery costs based on an offer to settle made under Rule 18 and the general costs principles under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court compared the parties’ positions and the offer and found that the mother had been successful and that her offer justified full indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs at $11,000.

Due to the father’s financial circumstances and ongoing support obligations, the costs were ordered to be secured against his interest in the matrimonial home, with additional restrictions preventing him from depleting assets disclosed in his financial statement.

Interim family law motion addressing parenting schedule and child support following separation.

The father sought maximum contact with the parties’ three children, but the court found equal parenting time unrealistic due to the children’s ages, school locations, and the distance between the parents’ residences after the father relocated.

A temporary parenting schedule was ordered providing the father alternating weekends, mid‑week access, and additional overnight time with the youngest child.

The court also requested the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and ordered the father to pay table child support while both parties shared certain section 7 expenses.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment and dismissing his application to re-open financial matters arising from the breakdown of his marriage.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere, noting that the parties had resolved the matters through final Minutes of Settlement incorporated into a final court order while the appellant was represented by counsel.

The motion judge correctly found that the respondent's disclosure had been adequate and that the appellant was attempting to relitigate resolved matters.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $4,200.

The appellant payor appealed a trial decision awarding retroactive child and spousal support, ongoing spousal support, and costs to the respondent recipient.

The parties had a separation agreement, but the payor failed to disclose significant increases in income and negotiated reduced support payments.

The Court of Appeal upheld the retroactive child support award, finding the payor's failure to disclose income constituted blameworthy conduct.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding spousal support, limiting the retroactive spousal support to the period before the recipient became self-sufficient and setting aside the ongoing spousal support award due to the time-limited nature of the separation agreement.

In a family law dispute involving allegations of hidden assets and non-disclosure, the wife sought business records from a corporation formerly co-owned by her husband.

The husband had sold his interest to his business partner, who then refused access to the records.

The motion judge ordered the third-party partner and corporation to disclose the records under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the motion judge erred by relying on previous disclosure orders against the husband rather than making an independent determination of unfairness, the disclosure order was nonetheless justified.

The appeal was dismissed, but the husband was ordered to reimburse the third parties for their reasonable expenses in complying with the order.