Rodolphe Alfred Vanier

This costs endorsement addresses the applicant's request for full indemnity costs following a successful motion for child and spousal support.

The court found the applicant was entitled to full indemnity costs due to the respondent's failure to comply with disclosure orders and other procedural requirements.

The court declined to award an additional penalty amount, finding that costs under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules are limited to reimbursement of legal fees and disbursements.

The respondent was ordered to pay $7,627.50 in costs.

The applicant brought a motion for child and spousal support, seeking to impute income to the respondent due to his failure to comply with disclosure orders and intentional under-employment.

The applicant also sought to prohibit the respondent from further participation in the proceeding and to compel disclosure from a non-party.

The court imputed an income of $100,000 to the respondent, ordered child support of $397 per month and interim spousal support of $344 per month.

The requests to prohibit the respondent's participation and to compel disclosure from a non-party were denied.

This costs endorsement follows the respondent's successful jurisdictional motion to dismiss the applicant's originating application and addresses the costs of the applicant's unsuccessful contempt motion.

The jurisdictional motion centered on the Ontario Superior Court's power to set aside a final New Brunswick family court order, which the court found it lacked.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Court Rules, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful respondent, noting the moderate complexity of the issues and the inappropriateness of the applicant's contempt motion, which lacked proper service and was an ill-suited remedy.

The respondent husband brought a motion seeking a declaration that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Family Division, lacked jurisdiction to set aside a Consent Final Order issued by the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench.

The applicant wife had commenced an application in Ontario to set aside the New Brunswick order, alleging fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent regarding his retirement status, which impacted spousal support waiver and pension division.

The court determined that an Ontario court does not possess the inherent or statutory jurisdiction to set aside a final order from another province, particularly when the original order was based solely on provincial legislation and not the Divorce Act.

The court noted that while interjurisdictional support orders have specific statutory mechanisms (e.g., ISOA), these do not extend to setting aside the original order itself.

The respondent's motion was granted, and the applicant's underlying application was dismissed.