Sean Cowan

This is a costs endorsement following a long motion in a family law matter.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs due to the Respondent's alleged unreasonable conduct, bad faith, and failure to comply with court orders and disclosure obligations.

The Respondent argued for divided success and that each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the Respondent's failure to comply with orders and disclosure obligations unreasonable, noting it complicated the matter, but did not find it crossed the threshold for "bad faith." Considering the Applicant's reasonable efforts to settle and the Respondent's unreasonable conduct regarding disclosure, the court awarded the Applicant $25,000 in costs, with 50% enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

The Applicant and Respondent both brought motions concerning financial issues, including spousal and child support, disclosure, and property matters.

Key issues for determination included the registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property solely owned by the Respondent, striking the Respondent's pleadings for non-disclosure, and the repayment of funds removed from joint accounts post-separation.

The court ordered the Respondent to repay $25,000 to the Applicant, ordered extensive financial disclosure from both parties (with a focus on the Respondent's corporate and personal finances), and imposed a non-dissipation order on the Respondent's solely owned property, requiring 90 days' notice of sale and deposit of proceeds into a corporate account.

The Applicant's request to strike pleadings and register a CPL was denied, though the Respondent was prohibited from bringing further financial motions without leave until disclosure compliance.

The applicant mother sought a temporary variation of a final parenting order concerning a 10-year-old child, M., aiming to reduce the father's parenting time and gain sole decision-making authority, based on a parenting coordinator's report.

The respondent father opposed the temporary changes and brought a cross-motion for an updated s.30 parenting assessment.

The court dismissed the mother's temporary motion, finding she did not meet the stringent onus required to demonstrate immediate irreparable harm to the child, noting the conflicted record.

The court also dismissed the father's cross-motion for an updated assessment, deeming it unnecessary and a cause of undue delay.

The mother's main Motion to Change was expedited for a two-day trial.