Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-04-5128 Date: September 25, 2025

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

Daniela Balian Self-Represented, for the Applicant Applicant

- and -

Dikran Balian Rinku Deswal, for the Respondent Respondent

Heard: September 25, 2025

Supplementary Reasons for Judgment

Mandhane J.

[1] The parties appeared before me for a five-day trial in June 2025. I released my Reasons for Judgement on July 11, 2025: Balian v. Balian, 2025 ONSC 4128 ("Reasons for Judgement"). I ordered the Respondent/Father to pay the Applicant/Mother child support arrears of $24,650, s. 7 expenses of $2,500, and costs of $30,000.

[2] The parties appeared before me to settle the final order on July 24, 2025. The Father submitted that I did not use the proper version of the Federal Child Support Guidelines to calculate the arrears owing. In support of his position, the Father provided his DivorceMate calculations, where the Mother relied on her submissions at trial.

[3] Upon retiring to double-check my calculations, I was persuaded that Appendix A to my Reasons for Judgement contained errors. In an endorsement dated July 24, 2025, I advised the parties about the errors and provided them with an amended chart. The correct figures indicate that the Father only owes the Mother child support arrears of $6,634 and s. 7 expenses of $2,500, for a total of $9,134. At the same time, I advised them that I was willing to revisit my costs decision at paragraphs 48-51 of the Reasons for Judgment because it was premised on the Mother being more successful at trial and beating the Father's offer to settle the matter for $20,000.

[4] The parties appeared before me today to argue the matter of costs on September 9, 2025, however, because of technical issues, the matter could not be heard and was adjourned to today's date. In advance of this date, the parties both tried to file supplementary costs submissions, which I refused to consider because neither party sought leave to file additional materials at the last conference.

[5] Based on the correct calculations, the Father is entitled to costs because he was the more successful party: Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, Rule 24(3). The Mother was unsuccessful insofar as she only made a modest recovery and did not beat the Father's May 2025 offer. The Father had offered the Mother $20,000 to resolve the matter; she did not accept the offer and proceeded to trial. In her opening statement before me, the Mother sought a total award of over $240,000.

[6] The Father says that he is entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity basis prior to the May 2025 offer (60% recovery), and on a full recovery basis afterwards: Rule 24(12). Given that this matter has been ongoing since 2004, the costs being claimed by the Father are substantial. He asks me to order $115,000, which includes $18,000 in substantial recovery fees prior to May 2025 offer, and about $90,000 in full recovery fees after the offer, as well as modest disbursements and HST.

[7] I am confident that the Mother was aware that she faced serious financial risks if she was not successful at trial. At a case conference on October 18, 2022, Justice Tzimas stated: "I am deeply concerned that through her actions, the Applicant may be exposing herself to costs and outcomes that will be to her detriment. She is encouraged to obtain legal advice to evaluate her best options going forward. Perhaps it is time to end all the past differences with the Respondent." But the Mother did not end the litigation—it continued for almost three more years afterward.

[8] While the Mother says that requiring her to pay costs would cause her hardship, I reject this argument. The mother's financial statement reflects the fact that she is not impecunious and has assets available to satisfy a financial order. Moreover, the mother no longer has any caregiving responsibilities to either child; whereas the father still has one of the children living with him full time.

[9] That all being said, I am entitled to deprive a successful party of some or all of their costs if they behaved unreasonably during the litigation: Rule 24(7). Here, the Father behaved unreasonably insofar as he failed to provide the Mother with adequate, contemporaneous, financial disclosure between 2004 and 2007, purposefully underpaid child support between 2006 and 2009, and outright refused to file an updated Financial Statement in advance of trial despite claiming that he would suffer financial hardship if he was ordered to pay the support owing: Reasons for Judgment, para. 49. The Father's refusal to make disclosure bred mistrust and resentment in the Mother, which then became her driving force for this litigation and impeded settlement. That is why the Court of Appeal has called financial disclosure is the cancer of family law.

[10] Weighing all the factors discussed above and set out in Rule 24(14), I would award the Father $55,000 in costs, all inclusive. This amount appropriate balances his ultimate success and more favourable offer against his unreasonable refusal to make ongoing financial disclosure.

[11] Finally, I am prepared to set off my costs awarded against the Father's outstanding child support arrears; doing so makes sense in this case because the Mother no longer has care of the children such that the monetary award is properly characterized as a debt: MAB v. MGC, 2023 ONSC 3748, referring to MB v. AF, 2021 ONCJ 45.

[12] The Mother shall pay the Father $45,866, which represents the amount awarded in costs ($55,000) minus the amount awarded to her on her substantive claims ($9,134).

[13] I remain seized pending issuance of my final order.

Mandhane J.

Released: September 25, 2025