R. Zaldin

Following an adjourned family trial, the court addressed costs thrown away resulting from the respondent’s failure to provide court-ordered financial disclosure.

The court held that significant preparation and trial time had been wasted because disclosure remained incomplete despite prior orders.

After reviewing the applicant’s bill of costs, the court fixed compensable preparation and trial time related to disclosure issues at 43 hours and awarded fees and disbursements.

The court emphasized the importance of compliance with disclosure obligations and professional conduct expectations for counsel.

Costs were ordered payable by the respondent and the non‑dissipation order was varied to permit refinancing of property to fund payment.

During an ongoing family law trial involving property and financial claims, the court addressed significant disclosure failures by the respondent, which resulted in missing financial documents and inaccurate disclosure affidavits.

The court determined that the trial was not ready to proceed due to incomplete documentary production and ordered the trial adjourned to allow proper review and further disclosure.

Multiple procedural orders were made requiring both parties to identify and produce outstanding documents and to exchange sworn affidavits of documents.

The court also ordered costs thrown away to the applicant caused by the disclosure failures.

In addition, the court granted the applicant interim relief by directing the release of $40,000 from funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home toward an admitted equalization entitlement.

Following a motion for leave to appeal temporary family law orders and a request for a stay pending appeal, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had been granted leave to appeal and obtained a partial stay of orders relating to child support, spousal support, and a prior costs award.

The responding party argued that no costs should be awarded because the moving party was only partially successful.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering the factors under Rule 24(11), the court held that the moving party was the successful party overall and was therefore entitled to costs.

The respondent sought leave to appeal temporary family law orders requiring payment of child support, spousal support, and costs, and requested a stay pending appeal.

The challenge focused on the motion judge’s imputation of income that included legal fees paid by the respondent’s father as part of the respondent’s income for support purposes.

The court held there was good reason to doubt the correctness of including third‑party payment of legal fees in the imputation of income and that the issue was of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

Leave to appeal was granted on that narrow issue.

A partial stay of the support and costs orders was also granted pending appeal, with reduced interim child and spousal support amounts based only on other financial benefits received from the respondent’s father.