Funding in an unequal complex family case
KV v L et al., 2026 ONSC 5053
Overview
In KV v. L et al., 2026 ONSC 5053, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered whether one party in complex family litigation should be required to provide the other with interim funding for legal and expert fees. The applicant sought $250,000—$150,000 for legal fees and $100,000 for expert fees.
The parties disputed whether they had been legally married, and the litigation also involved spousal support, property, trust and related civil claims. A focused hearing was scheduled to determine the threshold issue of whether a valid marriage existed.
The Court granted the motion in part, ordering the respondent to provide $150,000 in interim funding: $100,000 toward legal fees and $50,000 toward expert fees, together with $10,000 in costs.
The Legal Test
Under Rule 24(25) of Ontario’s Family Law Rules, a court may order one party to pay some or all of another party’s expenses of carrying on the litigation, including legal fees. The Court emphasized that the modern purpose of interim disbursements is to promote procedural fairness and, where appropriate, “level the playing field” between litigants.
The Court identified four considerations:
the underlying claim has merit;
the requested legal costs and disbursements are necessary and reasonable;
the applicant cannot fund those expenses; and
the opposing party has resources, or access to resources, capable of funding them.
Why the Applicant Succeeded
The Court found the applicant’s claims had sufficient merit. Importantly, the threshold was only an “arguable case” with some realistic prospect of success, not proof that she would ultimately win. Her property claim depended upon establishing a valid marriage, while her trust, spousal-support and civil claims could continue regardless of the outcome of that preliminary issue.
The Court was also persuaded that legal representation and expert assistance were reasonably necessary. The case was highly contentious, few facts were agreed upon, and the respondent had interests in five businesses whose values were listed as “TBD.” The Court also found his reported 2025 income of $44,200 “not believable” and concluded that an independent expert would likely be required to analyze his income and potentially value his businesses.
However, the applicant had not adequately particularized the requested $250,000 or provided a letter from her proposed expert describing the anticipated work. The Court therefore reduced the award to what it considered reasonable at this stage: $100,000 for legal fees and $50,000 for an initial income analysis. The applicant remained entitled to seek additional interim funding later, provided any future request was properly particularized.
Financial Imbalance and Access to Assets
The decision is particularly significant for financially unequal family-law disputes. The applicant demonstrated limited employment income, minimal liquid assets and approximately $29,630 in debt. The Court was satisfied that she could not finance the upcoming litigation herself.
Conversely, the respondent owned two homes and held significant interests in at least five corporations. Although his assets were subject to an existing preservation order, the Court stressed that the relevant question is not simply whether a party has cash immediately available, but whether the party has access to financial resources.
The preservation order was therefore varied to permit up to $150,000 in assets to be transferred, sold or encumbered to satisfy the interim funding order, subject to an accounting requirement.
Significance of the Decision
KV demonstrates that financial disparity should not prevent a party from meaningfully participating in complex family litigation. Interim disbursements can provide access to counsel, forensic accountants, business valuators and other experts necessary to understand complicated financial affairs.
The case is also important where a spouse’s wealth is tied up in corporations, businesses, investments or real property rather than cash. A claim of limited liquidity will not necessarily defeat an interim-funding application if the evidence demonstrates access to substantial assets.
At the same time, the decision contains an important lesson for the party seeking funding: document the amount requested carefully. Even though the applicant succeeded, the Court reduced her $250,000 request substantially because she had failed to provide a detailed breakdown and expert retainer information.
How Shankar Law Office Can Help
For clients involved in high-conflict separations, disputed marriages, complex property division, spousal-support claims or cases involving privately held businesses, Shankar Law Office can help identify and address financial inequality at an early stage of the proceeding.
Where a client lacks the resources necessary to litigate against a financially stronger spouse, the firm can assess whether an interim disbursement order under Rule 24(25) may be appropriate and assemble the evidence needed to demonstrate the merits of the underlying claim, the client’s inability to finance the litigation, the reasonableness of anticipated legal and expert expenses, and the other party’s ability to access resources.
In financially complex cases, this can also involve pursuing full financial disclosure, business and income valuation, tracing of assets, preservation orders and forensic accounting evidence, particularly where income is derived through corporations or the true value of business interests is disputed.
For clients responding to an interim-funding motion, careful representation is equally important. Counsel can challenge whether the requested expenses are actually necessary and reasonable, whether they have been properly particularized, whether the applicant genuinely lacks alternative resources, and whether the responding party realistically has access to the funds sought.
The practical lesson from KV is that access to justice can require more than simply ordering disclosure. Where one party controls substantially greater financial resources, Ontario courts have the power to order interim funding so that both sides can properly investigate, prepare and present their cases.
We have the knowledge and the expertise to assist you. Please do not hesitate to contact us. We are there to help anywhere in Ontario.