Stephen Grant

Following a lengthy family law trial where both parties experienced divided success, the applicant sought costs on the basis of the respondent's alleged bad faith and failure to disclose.

The respondent sought reimbursement of a $140,000 interim disbursement payment.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the parties' offers to settle and the respondent's unreasonable conduct.

The court concluded that the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith and, given the divided success and the offers to settle, ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The respondent's request for reimbursement was also denied.

Following a trial judgment that terminated child support for the parties' two children, the court determined the ongoing quantum of spousal support.

The parties' separation agreement provided for a combined unallocated support payment of $10,000 net per month.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $11,000 gross per month in spousal support effective January 1, 2018, and dismissed the respondent's request for a retroactive order and reimbursement of alleged overpayments.

The applicant sought to set aside a 2010 Separation Agreement, alleging the respondent failed to disclose significant corporate assets and that she signed under duress.

Alternatively, she sought to set aside the support provisions.

The respondent sought to uphold the agreement but requested extensive variations to support, including retroactive termination of child support and imputation of income to the applicant.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the agreement, finding the non-disclosure was not significant in the context of the negotiations and there was no duress.

The court also dismissed most of the respondent's variation requests due to a lack of a material change in circumstances, but granted the termination of child support for the two adult children who no longer lived with the applicant.

Following the dismissal of the applicant mother's motion to register the parties' child in the National Ballet School, the respondent father sought costs of $17,513 on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for a no-costs award, citing her good faith and the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle or provide financial disclosure.

The court found that both parties acted in good faith and that the binary nature of the motion precluded a reasonable offer to settle.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $8,500.

The court issued an endorsement to clarify a previous order enforcing signed Minutes of Settlement between the parties.

The parties had disagreed on the terms of the formal order and attempted to insert newly negotiated terms regarding their separation agreement into the draft order.

The court rejected these additions, noting that the formal order had already been settled in the previous endorsement.

The court directed the respondent's counsel to submit the original draft order with only the specific amendments previously ordered, and clarified a prior costs award.

The applicant sought costs of $25,000 following a successful motion for temporary spousal and child support.

The respondent conceded the applicant's entitlement to costs but argued for a reduced amount of $18,386 due to duplication of counsel and divided success on other issues, such as the sale of properties.

The court agreed with the respondent's proposed reductions for duplication of work and noted the divided success.

The court ordered the respondent to pay costs of $19,199 to the applicant.

The moving party brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties, and preferably to enforce an unsigned Separation Agreement.

The court found that the Minutes of Settlement were binding and in full force, as the responding party had already received over $2.1 million and monthly spousal support under its terms.

The court declined to enforce the unsigned Separation Agreement but settled the terms of the formal order enforcing the Minutes of Settlement.

The responding party was ordered to pay costs of $5,500.

In a high‑income family law proceeding, the applicant sought temporary child and spousal support following separation.

The respondent argued his income had fallen significantly due to banking restrictions and business challenges and urged the court to base support on a projected income of approximately $1.6 million rather than his prior line 150 income exceeding $5 million.

The court held that, on an interim motion without oral evidence or credibility findings, the respondent had not established that his proposed lower income fairly reflected the money available for support under the Child Support Guidelines.

The court therefore relied on the respondent’s 2014 line 150 income to calculate temporary support.

Temporary child support and spousal support were ordered accordingly.

Following a successful motion to change a final family law order, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party had succeeded in terminating spousal support and varying child support due to reduced income, though a related contempt motion failed.

Applying Rules 24 and 18 of the Family Law Rules and the principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court assessed success, offers to settle, and the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct.

The responding party’s failure to provide reliable financial disclosure and repeated lack of preparation for conferences constituted unreasonable conduct that increased litigation costs.

The court rejected both the full indemnity claim and the responding party’s request for no costs, fixing a fair and reasonable total costs award.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims to set aside their separation agreement.

The wife alleged that the husband failed to provide adequate financial disclosure regarding his business interests and income, and that she signed the agreement under duress.

Applying the framework from Hryniak and the amended Family Law Rule 16, the court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding both the adequacy of the husband's financial disclosure and the wife's allegations of duress.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

At a case conference in a family law proceeding, the court addressed a procedural logjam.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement based on lack of disclosure and duress, while the respondent had a pending motion for summary judgment to dismiss those claims.

The court prioritized the scheduling of the summary judgment motion over the applicant's motions for further disclosure and interim support, finding that resolving the summary judgment motion was necessary to advance the case.

At a case conference to manage a family law proceeding, the court addressed multiple outstanding procedural issues, including financial disclosure, questioning, and a long-delayed motion for summary judgment.

Noting the lack of progress and the logjam created by the pending summary judgment motion, the case management judge prioritized the summary judgment motion and established a strict timetable for its hearing, deferring other motions.

Following a successful family law motion granting injunctive relief to prevent dissipation of assets, the moving party sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and determined that the responding party had acted in bad faith by failing to provide proper financial disclosure, terminating support, and attempting to deal with jointly owned assets while international proceedings were ongoing.

Given the complexity of the litigation, the high financial stakes, and the conduct of the responding party, the court held that full indemnity costs were warranted.

The court ordered payment of substantial legal fees and disbursements to counsel for the moving party within 30 days.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, child support, and other relief, seeking to set aside the spousal support waiver in the parties' marriage contract.

The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which they enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and the respondent husband's net worth grew to approximately $500 million.

The court found the marriage contract's support waiver to be unconscionable and severed it from the agreement.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $175,000 per month, retroactive to the date of separation, and to maintain life insurance and health benefits for the applicant.

The claim for interim child support was dismissed.

Following a complex family law trial involving challenges to a marriage contract, equalization, support arrears, and related financial claims, the successful party sought substantial costs.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and found that the unsuccessful party acted in bad faith, including failing to provide disclosure, refusing reasonable settlement offers, and engaging in conduct that prolonged the litigation.

The court held that such conduct justified full recovery costs.

After deducting certain conference-related and administrative charges, the court awarded substantial costs and prejudgment interest to the successful party and costs to added respondents from the date of their settlement offer.

This decision addresses costs arising from multiple motions and proceedings in protracted estate litigation involving disputes between estate trustees and beneficiaries.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality and fairness in determining cost awards.

The court found that much of the litigation resulted from the estate trustees’ inability to cooperate and noted that one trustee frequently advanced unreasonable and self‑interested positions that prolonged proceedings.

Costs were awarded to various beneficiaries and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, largely payable out of the estate, with certain costs ordered personally against one trustee where his conduct unnecessarily caused litigation.

The court fixed specific monetary awards for each participant and rejected certain cost claims where the conduct did not justify indemnification.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

During a brief reconciliation attempt, they negotiated a marriage contract.

The wife intended to give the husband one-half the value of the matrimonial home, but a drafting error in the contract gave him the full value.

The husband and his lawyer noticed the error but failed to seek clarification.

At the time, the wife was suffering from undiagnosed bipolar disorder and hypomania, causing her to act recklessly.

The court found the contract void ab initio due to a lack of consensus ad idem on a fundamental term.

Alternatively, the court set aside the contract under the Family Law Act due to the wife's lack of capacity and unconscionability.

The court ordered an equalization payment, retroactive spousal support, and retroactive and ongoing child support.