Valda Blenman

The parties made written submissions on costs following the applicant's motions for disclosure, interim disbursements, non-depletion of assets, and questioning of third parties.

The respondent sought costs of $47,056.71 on a full recovery basis, arguing he was the successful party and had made a reasonable offer to settle.

The applicant argued for parties to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court found the respondent was successful on the contentious issues, but noted the applicant was justified in initially bringing the motion for disclosure.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court fixed the respondent's costs globally at $17,750.

The applicant brought a motion in a family law proceeding seeking extensive financial disclosure, questioning of the respondent and two non-parties, $35,000 in interim disbursements, and a preservation order.

The court ordered the respondent to produce uncontested disclosure and attend for questioning.

However, the court dismissed the request for the respondent's expert file, finding it protected by litigation privilege.

The request to question non-parties was dismissed as premature.

The claim for interim disbursements was denied because the applicant failed to establish the necessity and reasonableness of the funds.

Finally, the court declined to grant a preservation order, finding no evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation.