COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Sossin, Monahan and Osborne JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Oren Blau
Applicant (Appellant)
and
Michal Blau
Respondent (Respondent)
Mark DeGroot, for the appellant
Eric Sadvari, for the respondent
Heard and rendered orally: July 17, 2026
On appeal from the order of Justice Robert Charney of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 30, 2025, with reasons reported at 2025 ONSC 4432.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The appellant appeals the equalization order of the trial judge and seeks leave to appeal the award of costs.
2With respect to equalization, the appellant objects to the inclusion of a $78,000 shareholder loan (made by the appellant to his corporation) as an asset in his net family property. He argues that this shareholder loan should have been excluded from the calculation since it was unlikely to be repaid and in fact has not been repaid.
3A party’s net family property is determined as of the date of separation and as of that date the shareholder loan was in fact outstanding. The appellant invites us to consider the circumstances of the corporation both at the time of, and subsequent to, the date of separation. The trial judge found that the status of the corporation was unclear on the record. It was therefore within the trial judge’s discretion to include the value of the shareholder loan in the appellant’s net family property. We see no reviewable error and no basis for appellate intervention.
4On the issue of costs, the appellant argues that the trial judge failed to consider his formal and informal offers to settle and that costs ought not to have been ordered on an elevated basis.
5Leave to appeal costs is only granted where there are “strong grounds upon which the appellate court could find that the judge erred in exercising [their] discretion”: Brad-Jay Investments Ltd. v. Szijjarto (2006), , 218 O.A.C. 315 (C.A.), at para. 21, leave to appeal refused, [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 92. Costs orders are only set aside on appeal in cases where there was an error in principle or the costs decision is plainly wrong: Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd., 2004 SCC 9, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 303, at para. 27.
6There was no such error in this case.
7The trial judge ordered costs on an elevated basis due to the fact that the appellant acted with an element of bad faith. He found that there was a history of abusive and threatening correspondence from the appellant to both the respondent and her counsel, and a concerted effort on the appellant’s part to refuse or delay disclosure of his finances. Given these factual findings, it was appropriate for the trial judge to award costs on an elevated basis, in accordance with r. 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.1
8The appeal is therefore dismissed. The respondent is entitled to costs in the amount of $6,000, inclusive of applicable taxes and disbursements.
“L. Sossin J.A.”
“P.J. Monahan J.A.”
“Osborne J.A.”
Footnotes
- The rule about bad faith and costs orders in family law proceedings now appears at r. 24(10) of the Family Law Rules. At the time the underlying litigation was commenced, the rule was numbered r. 24(8). The text of the rule is identical.