Theodore Carl Dueck

The Superior Court of Justice issued a costs endorsement following a family law trial.

The respondent was deemed the more successful party, particularly due to her settlement-focused approach compared to the applicant's unreasonable settlement positions and discreditable conduct during the litigation.

The court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity scale for the respondent, deducting amounts for her own disclosure delays.

The final order required the applicant to pay a net amount to the respondent after offsetting the equalization payment.

The defendant moved to set aside a previously granted Mareva injunction that had frozen the proceeds from the sale of his home in a civil action arising from an alleged assault.

The plaintiffs had obtained the injunction ex parte based on concerns that the defendant would dissipate assets and frustrate enforcement of any damages award.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendant was removing assets from the jurisdiction or dissipating them outside the ordinary course of living.

Evidence showed the defendant had listed his home for sale because criminal bail conditions prevented him from living there and that he intended to purchase another residence.

Given the extraordinary nature of Mareva relief, the court concluded that continuation of the injunction was not justified and set it aside.

Following a five‑day hearing on a motion to change child support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The responding party to the motion had unsuccessfully sought a retroactive reduction of child support after selling a dental practice and relocating abroad, and income had been imputed based on prior earnings.

The successful party sought substantial costs including partial and full indemnity rates.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering success, offers to settle, the parties’ conduct, and the complexity of the issues, the court found the successful party was entitled to costs but reduced the amount claimed.

The court fixed costs at a fair and reasonable figure rather than the full amount incurred.

Following a motion concerning the continuation of spousal support, the court determined the appropriate costs payable by the respondent to the partially successful moving party.

The moving party sought costs on a full indemnity basis exceeding $25,000, while the responding party argued the bill of costs was excessive and should be assessed on a partial indemnity basis.

The court held that there were no circumstances justifying substantial or full indemnity costs and that the time claimed for cross-examination was excessive.

Applying the principle that costs should be reasonable and reflect the reasonable expectations of the losing party, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

A lump sum costs award was ordered.