Sharon R. Shore

This decision addresses a costs motion following a prior ruling where the Respondent was largely successful in obtaining interim child support, spousal support, and financial disclosure, while the Applicant's cross-motion to lift a preservation order was dismissed.

The Respondent sought full indemnity costs of $14,142.25, which the Applicant opposed, proposing $3,534.38 due to alleged partial success and excessive billing, and citing limited ability to pay.

The court found the Respondent's offer to settle was more favourable than the final order, entitling her to full indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The Applicant's conduct, including non-payment of support and inadequate financial disclosure, was deemed unreasonable.

The court awarded the Respondent $13,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable within 30 days, and lifted a preservation order on the Applicant's RRSP assets to facilitate payment.

In a motion to change a final spousal support order, both parties brought competing motions seeking further financial disclosure.

The court reiterated the fundamental family law principle of full and ongoing financial disclosure and emphasized proportionality in assessing relevance.

Several disclosure requests concerning employment records, banking transactions, credit card statements, and alleged interests in assets held with a parent were considered.

The court partially granted each party’s requests, ordering additional targeted disclosure including authorizations for financial records and an affidavit regarding ownership of a cottage property, while dismissing other requests as irrelevant or disproportionate.

In a motion to change a final spousal support order, both parties brought competing motions seeking further financial disclosure.

The court reiterated the fundamental family law principle of full and ongoing financial disclosure and emphasized proportionality in assessing relevance.

Several disclosure requests concerning employment records, banking transactions, credit card statements, and alleged interests in assets held with a parent were considered.

The court partially granted each party’s requests, ordering additional targeted disclosure including authorizations for financial records and an affidavit regarding ownership of a cottage property, while dismissing other requests as irrelevant or disproportionate.