Shannon Smith

This decision addresses a costs motion arising from the Respondent's successful application for an order requiring the Applicant to post security for future motions.

The court, applying the Courts of Justice Act and Family Law Rules, found the Respondent to be the successful party, noting the Applicant's unreasonable conduct in failing to submit an offer to settle and necessitating the motion.

Despite the Applicant's limited resources, the court reiterated that impecuniosity does not negate the obligation to pay costs.

The Applicant was ordered to pay $9,000 in costs to the Respondent.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking $150,000 in security for costs from the applicant, citing his conduct, delay tactics, outstanding costs awards, and impecuniosity.

The court noted the applicant's reliance on ODSP and lack of assets other than his share of the matrimonial home sale proceeds.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court declined to order the requested security, finding it would unjustly prevent the applicant from presenting his case on the merits.

However, the court ordered outstanding costs to be paid from a joint account and required the applicant to post $5,000 in security for any future motions.

The applicant sought leave to bring an urgent motion for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and interim spousal support prior to a case conference.

The applicant argued she faced financial hardship and needed funds to secure her own housing, as she could not stay with her parents indefinitely.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances did not rise to the level of urgency or undue hardship required under Rule 14(4) of the Family Law Rules, noting the parties had been separated for nearly two years before the application was commenced.