Article content continued

In May, the judge ordered Claman to pay nearly $50,000 in retroactive child support after finding that her annual salary was much higher than she claimed in court.

Claman had listed her income as $5,806, while her expenses were $414,206. The judge noted that her yearly amount of expenses on food exceeded her total income and the amounts she spent on restaurant bills alone gobbled up half of her claimed yearly income.

The judge concluded that based on her lifestyle and the expenses claimed on her financial statements, she had an annual income of $200,000.

The parties disputed the costs of the child-support applications, with Friedlander arguing that special costs should be awarded against Claman on the basis that her conduct was “reprehensible, blameworthy and deserving of rebuke.” Friedlander’s arguments were similar to those made in the earlier application, namely that Claman had tried to mislead or deceive the court.

Claman acknowledged that her former husband had succeeded in his applications, but denied that her conduct was reprehensible and argued that offers to settle the matter were not reasonably capable of acceptance.

But the judge agreed with Friedlander, finding that Claman’s position regarding her financial assets was virtually unchanged from her trial evidence and that she had once again tried to mislead or deceive the court, this time in an attempt to reduce the amount of child support.

“It follows that she has failed to disclose all of her assets,” the judge said in a ruling posted on the court’s website Wednesday. “This conduct is reprehensible, as that term has been interpreted in the costs jurisprudence.”

The judge referred the matter to the court registrar to determine the amount of special costs Claman will have to pay.

kfraser@postmedia.com

twitter.com/keithrfraser

CLICK HERE to report a typo.

Is there more to this story? We’d like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email vantips@postmedia.com.