Ronald V. Zaldin

The respondents, the applicant's former spouse and his father, brought motions for summary judgment to determine the validity of a $950,000 mortgage registered against a property owned by the former spouse.

The applicant argued the mortgage was a sham designed to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found that the father had advanced the funds to construct a home on the property and that the applicant had not signed the mortgage acknowledgment under duress.

The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring the mortgage valid and ordering the release of $950,000 from the sale proceeds to the father.

The plaintiff brought a motion for security for costs, which involved extensive cross-examination on the defendant's affidavit and numerous undertakings and refusals.

The court found that the motion was delving too deeply into the merits of the main action, causing undue delay and complexity, contrary to the principles of proportionality and efficient access to justice.

The motion for security for costs was adjourned sine die pending the completion of discoveries, with leave to re-bring it thereafter.

The court also provided directions for the production of certain financial documents by the defendant if the motion is pursued later and commented on the potential examination of a non-party.

This costs endorsement arose from a motion brought by the applicant wife for the appointment of an interim receiver, which was adjourned after the respondent husband secured financing.

The court found the applicant was justified in bringing the motion due to the husband's delay in payment but acted unreasonably by refusing to adjourn the motion when requested by the co-respondent brother, who had recently retained counsel.

Consequently, the court significantly reduced the applicant's requested costs, disallowing fees for court attendance and scrutinizing the reasonableness of claimed hours and disbursements.

The respondent husband was ordered to pay $9,744.61 in costs.

The applicant brought a motion seeking relief against the respondent law firm after funds were paid to the firm by the applicant’s former spouse following notice of a pending non‑dissipation order and after the order was granted.

The applicant argued that the payments of legal fees were part of a deliberate effort to dissipate assets and frustrate her ability to recover a substantial costs award in ongoing family litigation.

The court found that the acceptance of payments by the law firm in the context of the husband’s rapid depletion of assets constituted an abuse of process, particularly given the firm’s knowledge of the pending motion and subsequent court orders.

The court ordered the firm to pay into court the amount of funds received after notice of the non‑dissipation motion and required a limited accounting of legal fees.

Additional costs relating to the earlier motion were also ordered payable by the firm.