Rod A. Vanier

The parties separated after a long marriage and proceeded to a family law trial to resolve issues including the enforcement of a marriage contract, child support, equalization of net family property, occupation rent, and spousal support.

The court enforced the marriage contract's deferred dowry at the current conversion rate.

Income was imputed to the father due to undisclosed rental income from a foreign property, resulting in child support arrears.

The court valued the father's foreign property in the Gaza Strip based on expert evidence and ordered an equalization payment of $132,798.61 to the mother.

The mother's claims for occupation rent and spousal support were dismissed, and the matrimonial home was ordered to be sold.

Following a family law trial but before judgment was rendered, the respondent mother brought a motion to reopen the trial to admit fresh evidence regarding the sale of a co-owned property in the Gaza Strip.

The court applied the factors for reopening a trial and found the fresh evidence to be relevant and material to the disputed valuation of the property.

The motion was granted, and an order was issued requesting the Palestinian Land Authority to provide the updated land registration documents.

The applicant father sought costs for three separate attendances in a high-conflict custody and access dispute.

The court found that the respondent mother had acted in bad faith by systematically frustrating the father's access, breaching court orders, and recklessly submitting false evidence regarding a proposed assessor.

The court awarded the father costs for all three events, including full indemnity costs for the final motion due to the mother's bad faith, totaling $51,750.

Following a family law motion concerning arrears of child support and spousal expenses, the successful party sought substantial indemnity costs of $10,000.

The responding party argued success was divided and proposed a reduced costs award.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including relative success, settlement offers, financial disclosure conduct, reasonableness of counsel’s rates and time, and the losing party’s reasonable expectations.

The court found the moving party was substantially successful and had made a reasonable offer to settle, but not one warranting full indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $6,000 inclusive of HST plus disbursements.