Richard Niman

The respondent wife sought $14,000 in full indemnity costs after being somewhat successful on her motion for spousal support.

Neither party beat their respective offers to settle.

The court applied the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and relevant jurisprudence, emphasizing that costs must be reasonable, proportionate, and serve the fundamental purposes of the costs rules.

The court awarded the respondent wife $7,000 in all-inclusive costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the breakdown of a 15-year marriage.

The parties enjoyed an exceptionally high standard of living, with family wealth including a $200 million business fund and multiple luxury properties.

The applicant argued the motion was premature due to an impending $90 million equalization payment and contested the respondent's proposed budget as inflated.

The court found the motion was not premature and the respondent was entitled to support.

Given the applicant's income far exceeded the $350,000 ceiling, the court departed from a strict application of the guidelines, awarding $200,000 per month in interim spousal support and $75,000 per month in interim child support, plus $27,000 monthly for nannies.

Claims for retroactive support were deferred to trial.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support.

The parties were married for 15 years, during which the wife was a stay-at-home mother and the husband worked in his family's real estate business.

The court declined to impute income to the wife at this early stage.

The court included regular financial advances from the husband's father in the husband's income, treating them as gifts rather than loans for the purpose of the interim motion.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered the husband to pay interim spousal support of $7,136 per month, representing the mid-point of the range.

The issue of retroactive support was deferred.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a short marriage.

The applicant claimed she managed the respondent's finances and businesses, sacrificing her own career, while the respondent alleged she fraudulently took control of his assets.

The court found the applicant established a prima facie case for entitlement based on economic interdependence and immediate need.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $878,422 using a three-year average including corporate pre-tax income, and imputed the applicant's income at $35,000.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim spousal support of $5,842.50 per month.

The court declined to order retroactive support and made the order on an interim-interim basis.

In this family law trial, the mother sought to relocate with the children to Toronto and requested sole decision-making responsibility.

The father opposed the move and sought joint decision-making and a shared parenting arrangement.

The court found that the father had engaged in serious family violence, including coercive control and unauthorized surveillance, while the mother had engaged in mild, situational violence.

Due to the history of family violence and the father's inability to co-parent collaboratively, the court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility.

The court also found the relocation to Toronto was in the children's best interests due to the mother's role as primary caregiver and her commute to work, and ordered a parenting schedule and a restraining order against the father.

During a family law trial involving mobility and allegations of family violence, the applicant father sought to introduce evidence regarding a hidden bedroom camera.

He had previously refused to answer questions about the camera during pre-trial questioning, citing an active criminal proceeding for voyeurism.

The respondent mother objected to the evidence as trial by ambush.

The court compared the Family Law Rules with the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that Family Law Rule 20(20) creates a presumption of admissibility unless harm is demonstrated.

Finding that the mother would suffer prejudice but not sufficient harm to exclude the evidence, the court admitted the testimony.

However, the court ordered the father to pay $2,500 in costs and a $2,500 fine for his strategic failure to correct his refusal prior to trial.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order for reunification therapy between herself and the parties' 15-year-old daughter, C, with the respondent covering expenses.

The court, applying the five-factor test from Leelaratna v. Leelaratna, dismissed the motion.

The judge found no compelling expert evidence to support the therapy, noted the interim stage of the proceedings, and emphasized C's views as a mature minor, who was not willing to voluntarily participate at this time.

The court concluded that forcing reunification therapy would not be in C's best interests and preferred an organic approach to mending the relationship.

The Applicant sought to set aside a 2006 separation agreement and requested interim spousal support.

The Respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.

The court dismissed the Respondent's summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of fact requiring a trial regarding non-disclosure, unconscionability, duress, and undue influence concerning the separation agreement.

The Applicant's motion for interim spousal support was dismissed without prejudice due to significant delay and lack of assets to repay if the agreement is upheld.

The court ordered a joint settlement/trial management conference to expedite a trial date.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of HST.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's answer, prevent further court orders, obtain directions regarding discovery evidence use between related civil and family proceedings, and appoint an expert to value the respondent's corporate shares and income.

The respondent cross-moved to add family members as parties and compel their disclosure/questioning, and for general disclosure from the applicant.

The court dismissed the applicant's requests to strike pleadings and prevent further orders, and the respondent's requests to add parties and compel non-party disclosure.

The court granted, by consent, the use of civil discovery evidence in the family case, ordered an expert income report for the respondent, and ordered specific financial disclosure from the applicant.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Shore J. dated March 21, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and made no order as to costs.

The applicant sought an urgent order to compel the respondent's attendance for cross-examination on an affidavit, following the respondent's refusal to attend due to the applicant's intention to have an expert assist counsel.

The court addressed the respondent's unilateral refusal to attend and the issue of whether leave is required for an expert to assist counsel at an out-of-court examination.

The court found that counsel do not need leave to bring assistants, including experts, to examinations, and that the onus to exclude such individuals lies with the party alleging prejudice.

The respondent's motion to exclude the expert was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to attend cross-examination.

The applicant sought temporary and retroactive spousal support, full financial disclosure, and permission to retain a financial expert.

The respondent opposed, arguing a settlement conference was set and the applicant had withdrawn significant funds, seeking termination or nominal spousal support.

The court granted interim monthly and retroactive lump sum spousal support to the applicant, ordered full financial disclosure from the respondent, and permitted the applicant to retain an expert.

The respondent's requests to terminate or reduce support were denied due to his failure to provide disclosure and concerns about his financial transparency.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The Applicant Wife brought a motion seeking spousal and child support, interim disbursements, and costs.

The parties agreed on entitlement to compensatory spousal and child support, disputing only the quantum.

The court determined the Respondent's income for support purposes, including bonuses and benefits, and found the Applicant entitled to share in post-separation income increases.

The court ordered uncharacterized interim support of $60,000 per month, retroactive to January 1, 2022, and dismissed the motion for interim disbursements, finding the Applicant would have sufficient funds from the retroactive support.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Czutrin J. dated September 3, 2021.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed at $2,500 all inclusive.

The applicant father sought to review and terminate spousal support and adjust child support pursuant to a 2012 Separation Agreement.

The respondent mother sought a retroactive increase in support to 2013, alleging the father hid income from the sale of his business.

The court found no blameworthy conduct by the father and denied the retroactive claim due to the mother's failure to give effective notice.

The court imputed $390,000 in annual income to the mother, finding she was intentionally underemployed and failed to utilize her substantial investment portfolio to generate income, despite her obligations under the Separation Agreement.

Spousal support was ordered to terminate after one additional year, and child support was adjusted prospectively based on the parties' current incomes.

The parties disputed the costs of motions regarding their children's school enrollment, in which the applicant was successful.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondent acted unreasonably by unilaterally enrolling the children in a different school and refusing to adhere to their prior educational plan.

The respondent argued each party should bear their own costs because the applicant refused to participate in mediation/arbitration.

The court found neither party's conduct warranted a departure from partial indemnity costs.

The applicant was awarded $9,033.00 in costs, payable upon the resolution of the remaining issues or the sale of the family residence.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support and interim disbursements following the breakdown of a 23-year traditional marriage.

The court imputed an income of $0 to the applicant and determined the respondent's income for support purposes to be over $2 million, adding back personal expenses paid by his corporations (including significant auto racing expenses for their son) and a portion of pre-tax corporate income.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $45,000 per month and a further interim disbursement of $100,000 to allow the applicant to fund her litigation and expert fees.

The mother brought a motion for a stay of a term of an interim parenting arbitration award that eliminated the requirement for the father to undergo portable breathalyzer testing four times per day during his parenting time.

The mother sought the stay pending her motion for leave to appeal the award.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test, emphasizing that in parenting cases, the best interests of the children are paramount.

The court found no serious issue of law, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, as the arbitrator had found no evidence of alcohol abuse during the father's parenting time.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.