BURNS v ARAGON

This was a decision arising from a long-running, high-conflict matrimonial property dispute.

With respect to Rule 10.31, the Court confirmed that costs remain discretionary and that, under Rule 10.31(5), costs may be awarded to self-represented litigants only in exceptional circumstances. The Court did not make an immediate costs award but expressly retained jurisdiction to do so if the parties were unable to agree. The Decision emphasized that the mere fact of self-representation does not entitle a party to costs, and that such awards require careful justification.

Rules 10.51, 10.52, and 10.53 were engaged in relation to the Defendant’s repeated failure to comply with disclosure and undertaking orders, which resulted in a formal contempt finding earlier in the proceedings. The Court reiterated that contempt is a serious remedy governed by Rules 10.51 to 10.53 and arises where a party knowingly disobeys a court order. The Defendant had refused to purge his contempt, asserting that disclosure obligations conflicted with alleged confidentiality agreements. The Court rejected this justification and held that the failure to comply wasted public resources, caused delay, and unfairly increased the opposing party’s costs.

In summary, the Plaintiff was awarded an equal division of the matrimonial home proceeds and other divisible assets, noting that a Divorce Judgment would be provided to the parties by the Court in further correspondence.