Court File and Parties
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
NINA FUHRER
Applicant
- and -
SAMUEL FUHRER
Respondent
COUNSEL: C. Turner, for the Applicant B. Morgan, for the Respondent
HEARD: in writing
BEFORE: Mr. Justice J.S. Fregeau
Reasons for Costs
INTRODUCTION
1This family law application was scheduled for a five day in-person trial, December 1-5, 2025. The primary issues for trial were:
- Spousal Support – entitlement, quantum, duration; and
- Equalization of Net Family Property – in particular, the value of the respondent’s interest (10%) in the family logging company and security for, or the payment method of, the equalization payment the parties agreed would be owing to the applicant.
2On the first day of trial, the respondent conceded that the applicant was entitled to spousal support. After three days of trial, the parties settled the spousal support issues. It was agreed that the respondent would pay the applicant spousal support in the lump sum amount of $110,000.00, in full satisfaction of retroactive and ongoing spousal support.
3In general terms, the lump sum spousal support amount agreed to for settlement purposes was based on an imputed income to the respondent of $60,000.00/year retroactively and for ten years going forward, less a credit for partial spousal support paid pursuant to a September 28, 2023, temporary order.
4The property issues settled after two days of trial. It was agreed that the respondent would pay the applicant an equalization payment in the amount of $108,000.00. This took into account the fact that the respondent purchased the applicant’s interest in the matrimonial home in February 2024 for $272,500. This resulted in a total equalization payment from the respondent to the applicant of $380,500.00.
5It was further agreed that the $108,000.00 equalization payment and the $110,000.00 lump sum spousal support payment would be paid in full on or before January 5, 2026.
6The parties were unable to resolve the issue of costs. The applicant seeks her costs on a full indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $66,129.48. In the alternative, the applicant seeks costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $52,903.57. The respondent submits that there should be no costs awarded and that each party should bear their own costs.
7I conclude that the applicant was substantially successful. Pursuant to Family Law Rule 24(1), the applicant is presumptively entitled to costs of the application.
BACKGROUND RELEVANT TO DETERMINATION OF COSTS
8Following separation, the applicant vacated the matrimonial home and moved to Saskatchewan. The matrimonial home included a large mechanical shop integral to the family logging business, owned and operated by the respondent and the parties’ sons.
9On September 28, 2023, the parties agreed to the terms of a temporary order which included the following:
a) The respondent to pay to the applicant spousal support in the amount of $3,000.00 six times per year, beginning October 1, 2023;
b) The respondent to purchase the applicant’s interest in the jointly owned matrimonial home for $272,500.00; and
c) Neither the applicant nor the respondent shall transfer, convey or deplete any assets or interests which would impair or defeat the applicant’s claim for spousal support or equalization of net family property.
10The transfer of the applicant’s interest in the matrimonial home to the respondent was completed in February 2024.
11In the period between the September 2023 temporary order and the December 2025 trial, certain events occurred which I find are relevant to the issue of costs:
- Beginning October 2024, the respondent failed to pay the spousal support he was ordered to pay pursuant to the temporary order ($3000 every two months);
- Shortly prior to trial, the respondent transferred title to the former matrimonial home to his son, in direct contravention of the non-depletion order of September 2023.
12Despite the respondent’s – and his counsel’s – weak and ineffectual protestations to the contrary, I find that the respondent’s transfer of the matrimonial home to his son was done in an attempt to protect this property from the enforcement of a final spousal support and equalization payment order that the respondent knew was coming as the trial approached. As noted above, the shop portion of the former matrimonial home property was integral to the continued viability of the family logging business.
13In regard to the respondent’s failure to pay temporary spousal support in the 14 months preceding trial, I accept the submission of the applicant that this was done in an attempt to impoverish the applicant in the period leading up to trial and to pressure her to resolve outstanding issues on terms more favourable to the respondent.
14In her submissions on costs, the applicant urges the Court to find that the respondent’s conduct amounts to bad faith within the meaning of Family Law Rule 24(10), which provides as follows:
If a party has acted in bad faith, the court shall decide costs on a full recovery basis and shall order the party to pay them immediately.
15Family Law Rule 24(14) further provides that in setting the amount of costs, the court shall consider, among other things, the reasonableness of each party’s behaviour. To say that the respondent’s behaviour in failing to honour his temporary spousal support obligation and in transferring the former matrimonial home to his son prior to trial was unreasonable is an understatement.
16I reject the applicant’s submission that the respondent’s conduct amounts to bad faith within the meaning of Family Law Rule 24(10). I do find, however, that the respondent’s unreasonable behaviour in transferring the former matrimonial home to his son in direct contravention of the September 2023 non-depletion order, and in failing to pay temporary spousal support in the 14 months prior to trial, is deserving of sanction by way of an order for costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
17The applicant’s Bill of Costs sets out substantial indemnity fees at $43,023.60, plus disbursements of $3,793.72, for a total of $52,903.57, including HST. Several counsel worked on the file, up to and including the April 12, 2023 Case Conference. From this point through to the conclusion of the trial, Ms. Turner had carriage of the file. Ms. Turner was called to the bar in 2022, and her hourly fee during the course of the litigation ranged from $195-$245/hour. I find this hourly fee to be reasonable for her level of experience.
18The applicant’s Bill of Costs includes a total of $13,162.50 for the work of various legal assistants. This is properly attributed to overhead and should not be included in an award of costs. The removal of this from the applicant’s total