Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FS-21-00025674 Date: 2026-03-09 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Mao Jen Chang, Applicant And: Su Hui Chang, Respondent
Before: Justice Carolyn Leach
Counsel: Warren Tobias, for the Applicant Jeff Li, for the Respondent
Heard: February 10, 2026
Endorsement
[1] This a motion brought by the respondent wife for an order for interim disbursements under r. 24(25) of the Family Law Rules, O.Reg. 114/99. In particular, she seeks $25,000 for the long motion returnable in this matter on April 14, 2026 and, unless it is vacated as a result of that motion, a further $220,000 for the trial of this matter. In both instances, she proposes that the monies be released from the net sale proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home, currently held in court.
[2] For the reasons set out below, I order that $25,000 in interim disbursements be paid to the respondent's counsel out of the funds held in court.
Background
[3] The parties were married in 1979 in Taiwan. They have two adult children, Cheng Hsiang Chang ("Ballen") and Yu Hsuan Chang ("Kimi"). Ballen was added as a party to the proceedings by the respondent wife in 2025.
[4] In 1980, the parties established a plastic materials manufacturing business which eventually expanded into China. The applicant managed the operations in China while the respondent oversaw the Taiwan operations. All revenue and assets were held in the respondent's sole name, which she states was a risk mitigation strategy for their Chinese business dealings. In 2009, the parties retired, immigrated to Canada, and purchased a home. Ballen took over operation of the business. Every year, Ballen transferred about $120,000 to $180,000 to the parties to cover their living expenses.
[5] In 2012, the parties sold their home in Toronto, with net sale proceeds of about $2,600,000. They used about $1,300,000 to purchase another matrimonial home and gave approximately $1,000,000 to Ballen.
[6] In 2018, the shares in the family business were redistributed and the respondent transferred most of her shares to Ballen and Kimi. In 2020, Ballen closed down the business.
[7] In June 2020, the respondent fell victim to an online romance scan and was defrauded out of approximately $500,000. Ballen became aware of the scam and told the applicant. The respondent alleges that the applicant assaulted her after Ballen told him about the scam and was charged. He was removed from the home on October 20, 2020.
[8] At the time of the separation, the parties owned the matrimonial home in Toronto, a condo in Taiwan, and two vacant land parcels in Taiwan. These properties were purchased with funds generated by the family business and were held solely in the respondent wife's name. The respondent's position is that she and the applicant each have a 50% beneficial interest in these properties.
[9] The respondent's evidence is that, with the applicant's consent, she executed two limited scope powers of attorney authorizing Ballen to sell the Taiwan land parcels on her behalf and to deposit all sale proceeds in her Taiwan bank accounts. In June 2021, the applicant (through his counsel) asked the respondent to instead transfer the land parcels to Ballen and Kimi. She did not agree.
[10] In September 2021, the applicant commenced this application in Ontario, seeking a divorce and an unequal division of property. As part of his claim, the applicant asserted that he had a 100% beneficial interest in the properties held in the respondent's name.
[11] In March 2022, the respondent learned that Ballen had sold the land parcels in Taiwan. She later learned that the sale had concluded on April 15, 2021 and that the proceeds of sale (approximately CDN$5.5 million) had been deposited into a new Taiwan bank account that Ballen had opened in her name without her knowledge. Between June 30 and November 17, 2021, Ballen transferred the entire sum to various accounts owned by him and Kimi and eventually hid the money in overseas accounts.
[12] On May 15, 2022, the respondent commenced a civil action in Taiwan against Ballen for misappropriation of the sale proceeds. On July 17, 2023, the Taiwan court granted judgment that Ballen pay the net sale proceeds to the respondent. However, as Ballen had transferred the proceeds to unknown overseas bank accounts and had sold his only real property in Taiwan, the respondent was unable to recover most of the funds. The respondent attempted various processes in Taiwan (formal request to the Prosecutor's Office, negligence claim against the Taiwan bank, application to enforce the civil judgment against Ballen), but these were unsuccessful. She states that she incurred about $305,000 in legal fees in Taiwan but ultimately was only able to recover about $4000 from Ballen.
[13] Meanwhile, the Ontario litigation continued. The matrimonial home was sold on consent. $40,000 was paid out to each party from the proceeds of sale and the remainder ($1,385,282) was paid into court further to Justice Kristjanson's order dated January 17, 2022. In February 2023, the applicant brought an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment seeking to have the funds held in court paid to him as an advance on equalization. In May 2023, he then commenced a series of legal proceedings in Taiwan for division of their properties. In November 2024, the Taiwanese Court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant a property division amount of approximately $1,300,000. The respondent's evidence is that this property division award was premised on her primary asset being the $5.5 million owed to her by Ballen, but did not account for the fact that it has not been possible for the respondent to recover the vast majority of these funds.
[14] The Ontario application has now been set down for a 12--13 day trial, scheduled for January 2027. Before the trial can proceed, it is necessary to determined whether the Taiwanese judgment against the respondent should be recognized and enforced in Ontario. This will be addressed in a long motion scheduled for April 14, 2026. The outcome of that motion will impact the scope and length of the trial, which is focused on the division of net family property and spousal support.
[15] As noted above, the respondent seeks an interim disbursement from the funds held in court to cover her legal costs for the long motion ($25,000) and the trial ($220,000). The parties have already received $85,000 each from the funds held in court, further to a consent order made in May 2024. At present, approximately $1,215,000 plus accrued interest is held in court. The respondent's position is that she and the applicant are each entitled to half of these funds, and she asks that interim disbursements be paid out of her share so that she can be represented by a lawyer at the long motion and the trial.
The Law
[16] Rule 24(25) of the Family Law Rules reads as follows:
The court may make an order that a party pay an amount of money to another party to cover part or all of the expenses of carrying on the case, including a lawyer's fees.
[17] The purpose of an order for interim disbursements is to level the "playing field" between the parties. The order is a discretionary one. In exercising discretion under the rule, the court must ensure the primary objective of fairness under the Family Law Rules is met: Stuart v. Stuart, 2001 CanLII 28261; Ludmer v. Ludmer, 2012 ONSC 4478
[18] As set out by Mesbur J. in Ludmer v. Ludmer, in order to be successful, the respondent must:
a. Clearly demonstrate that the disbursements are necessary and reasonable given the nature of the case and the funds available;
b. Clearly demonstrate she is incapable of funding the fees and disbursements herself; and
c. Show that the claims she is advancing in this case are meritorious as far as can be determined on a balance of probabilities at the time of this request.
Analysis
[19] As noted above, the overriding purpose of an order for interim disbursements is to level the playing field between the parties. Due to the conflicting facts presented by the parties on this motion, it has been difficult to discern whether there is in fact a significant imbalance in the resources that each party has to fund the litigation.
[20] While the parties once relied on a regular flow of funds from Ballen to cover their living expenses, Ballen has cut off funding to his mother apparently due to the $500,000 she paid to the romance scammer against his advice. The respondent says that the applicant continues to receive funds from Ballen. The applicant denies this, although he does acknowledge that one at least one occasion in 2021/2022 Ballen gifted him approximately $30,000 to aid him in his "time of trouble". It is not possible for me to determine the extent to which Ballen is supporting the applicant based on a conflicted written record.
[21] The respondent's evidence is that she has only $10,000 remaining in her bank account, which is not enough to pay her ongoing legal fees. This is reflected in her most recent financial statement. In contrast, I note that the applicant's most recent financial statement reflects a total balance of $67,154 in his bank and investment accounts.
[22] On balance, I find that a payment of interim disbursements of $25,000 to cover the costs of the long motion is necessary to achieve fairness between the parties. It is not possible for me to assess the respondent's request in relation to the trial, as the length and complexity of the trial are entirely dependent on the outcome of the long motion. Given the relatively modest sum required to cover the respondent's legal fees for the long motion, I am satisfied that I should exercise my discretion in favour of the respondent.
[23] First, I am satisfied that the requested disbursements are necessary. The long motion is a key step, as it will determine the future direction of the entire proceeding. There are complex legal issues to be addressed, including: whether the applicant's initiation of proceedings in Taiwan in the midst of family court litigation in Ontario amounted to "unfair forum shopping tactics"; whether Taiwan or Ontario has jurisdiction over the parties' property claims, based on the parties' last common habitual residence and their connections to the two jurisdictions; whether conflict of law issues are presented by this situation; and the impact of the respondent's ongoing application in Taiwan to prevent enforcement of the order. There is no question that the respondent will require legal representation at this hearing.
[24] I am satisfied that the requested disbursements are reasonable, given the nature of the issues to addressed at the motion. The respondent's counsel has been practicing for 15 years. I find that $25,000 is a reasonable estimate of legal fees, given the research, the materials, and the preparation time that will be required for this day long hearing. It will also be necessary to pay for official translation of the Taiwanese court documents.
[25] I am further satisfied that the requested disbursements are reasonable in light of the funds available. The amount remaining from the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home is $1,215,000. The applicant opposes payment of interim disbursements out of these funds, as he wants to ensure that there are funds to satisfy any judgment he might obtain against the respondent. He has provided various estimates of the equalization payment he might be owed, all of which exceed $1 million. However, I note that each of these calculations is premised on the respondent owning all of the properties in their entirety and do not account for the husband's potential beneficial interest. Permitting $25,000 to be paid out of the respondent's share of the funds held in court will not unduly prejudice the applicant, particularly when set against the prejudice that would be occasioned to the respondent if she is not represented at the motion.
[26] Based on the respondent's evidence, I am satisfied that she has depleted her assets and available sources of funding and accordingly that she is not capable of funding the legal fees and disbursements for the motion herself. The respondent's evidence is that she has paid over $305,000 in court fees and legal fees for the Taiwan litigation to recover the sale proceeds of the land parcels, almost $50,000 for the litigation that the applicant initiated in Taiwan, and approximately $200,000 to date for the Ontario litigation. She also states that since the separation, she has paid all of the carrying costs of the matrimonial home (until it was sold), the Taiwan condo, and a condo that the parties purchased for Kimi, totalling $182,000. Her evidence is that she has mortgaged the Taiwan condo to the full extent possible and has borrowed about $400,000 from her brother to finance her legal and property expenses. She states that she has no other funds to draw from.
[27] The applicant points to a lack of corroborating evidence to support these expenses and loans. He urges the court to question them given purported irregularities in the various financial statements sworn by the respondent over the course of these proceedings. His view is that there is still sufficient equity in the Taiwan condo for the wife to borrow at least another $100,000; the respondent states that the Taiwan condo is fully encumbered. I am prepared to accept the respondent's sworn statement on this issue.
[28] Finally, I am satisfied that the respondent has established a prima facie case justifying an order for interim disbursements. As set out in Romanelli v. Romanelli, 2017 ONSC 1312, she does not need to prove her case; she need only establish that it is a case which, based on the facts presented in the affidavits, makes sense to prosecute. This is not a case with little or no chance of success. I find that the claims she will be advancing at the long motion are meritorious.
[29] The applicant has requested that, if interim disbursement are ordered, the same sum should be advanced to him. However, he has not brought his own motion for interim disbursements and accordingly I decline to make this order.
Orders
[30] For the reasons above, this court orders that:
a. The sum of $25,000 shall be released forthwith from the net sale proceeds of 238 Horsham Avenue, North York, Ontario, currently held in court to the credit of this action, and shall be paid to "Jeff J. Li Professional Corporation in Trust" as interim disbursements for the respondent Su Hui Chang Hu for the long motion returnable April 14, 2026.
b. The respondent's motion for interim disbursements for legal fees related to the trial of this matter is dismissed, without prejudice to her bringing a further motion for this relief after the long motion has been heard and determined. Such a motion must be supported with documentation that particularizes the estimated legal fees so that the court can assess whether the request is reasonable.
[31] The respondent may submit a draft order, approved as to form and content, for my signature through my judicial assistant at kevin.wailoo@ontario.ca
[32] Costs of this motion are deferred to the judge hearing the long motion.
Justice Carolyn Leach
Date: March 9, 2026