Shameela Chinoy

Following a motion where the respondent was largely successful, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of over $19,000.

The court reduced the amount due to excessive preparation time, high hourly rates, and the improper inclusion of clerical tasks and unrelated matters.

The court awarded the respondent $9,000 plus disbursements.

The court also declined the respondent's invitation to order costs personally against the applicant's counsel, finding no basis for such an order.

The applicant obtained an ex-parte preservation order under sections 12 and 40 of the Family Law Act, restraining the respondent from dealing with his property.

On review of the order, the court found that the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, including misrepresenting the proceeds from the sale of the respondent's business.

Applying the three-part test for interim injunctions, the court concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured her.

The ex-parte order was set aside, save for a certificate of pending litigation on one property.