SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: FS-10-068130-00
DATE: 20131107
RE: Holly Noelle Meszen v. Peter Meszen
BEFORE: Fragomeni J.
COUNSEL:
Justin Clark for the Respondent Husband
David G. Thwaites for the Applicant Wife
Paul Trudelle for the Family Trust
E N D O R S E M E N T RE COSTS
[1] The husband’s motion was for an order for leave for the husband to proceed with a motion for disclosure as required by the order of Justice André dated March 27, 2013.
[2] The relevant paragraph of Justice André’s order is paragraph 6 which states:
The Respondent must seek leave of the Court to bring a further motion seeking additional disclosure from the Applicant regarding her income from the family trust.
[3] The husband submits that he was successful at the motion and he was granted leave in accordance with paragraph 6. The husband argues, therefore, that pursuant to Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules he is presumed entitled to costs.
[4] The wife submits that the husband is not entitled to costs. The wife submits that the leave sought by the husband and as particularized in his Factum was broad ranging and requested disclosure regarding issues of the operations of the Trust, the interest of Mackenzie, and issues far beyond the issue of valuation and outside the “income of the Applicant from the Family Trust.”
[5] The wife argues further that the Court, in granting a very limited scope of leave, has effectively precluded much of the scope of the disclosure sought by the husband as set out in his motion material. In all of these circumstances the wife argues that she is entitled to costs of the leave motion.
[6] The Family Trust also submits that the relief requested by the husband was much broader than that provided by Justice André and included extensive disclosure from the Family Trust. The Family Trust points to Justice André’s comment at the motion before him that “I am not persuaded that additional disclosure is required from the Applicant’s family trust.” In all of these circumstances the Family Trust submits that it is entitled to costs.
[7] It is my view that the issue of costs of the leave motion is best reserved to the Justice hearing the disclosure motion. The Justice hearing the disclosure motion will be in the best position to determine whether additional disclosure will be ordered from the Applicant regarding her income from the family trust. The nature and extent of that disclosure will be dealt with by the Justice hearing the disclosure motion.
[8] I am satisfied, therefore, that the arguments being made by the wife and the Family Trust with respect to the costs of the leave motion should be dealt with by the Justice hearing the disclosure motion. That Justice will be determining what further disclosure documents, if any, relating to the Applicant’s income from the family trust ought to be provided to the husband.
[9] Order to issue that costs of the leave motion are reserved to the Justice hearing the husband’s disclosure motion.
Fragomeni J.
DATE: November 7, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: FS-10-068130-00
DATE: 20131107
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Holly Noelle Meszen v. Peter Meszen
BEFORE: Fragomeni J.
COUNSEL:
Justin Clark for the Respondent Husband
David G. Thwaites for the Applicant Wife
Paul Trudelle for the Family Trust
ENDORSEMENT RE COSTS
Fragomeni J.
DATE: November 7, 2013