Lang-Newlands v. Newlands: When $2.8M Costs Eclipse Equalization — Offers, Conduct, and Shinder Collide

Citations:

• Lang-Newlands v. Newlands, 2024 ONSC 6285 (trial judgment)
• Lang-Newlands v. Newlands, 2025 ONSC 2739 (costs decision, Sharma J.)
• Lang-Newlands v. Newlands, 2025 ONCA 328 (Pepall J.A., motion endorsement)

Introduction

Family law litigation can be expensive, and Lang-Newlands v. Newlands illustrates the significant financial impact that may result when settlement offers are declined, credibility becomes an issue, and litigation conduct does not meet expected standards.

After a 30-day trial, Justice Sharma ordered $2.8 million in costs against Ian Newlands, payable to his former spouse, Barbara Lang-Newlands. Shortly afterward, the Court of Appeal was asked to address the automatic stay of money judgments under r. 63.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Lang-Newlands v. Newlands, 2025 ONCA 328). Because both spouses owed each other millions, the stay operated unevenly — Ian could immediately collect retroactive support from Barb, but Barb’s $2.24 million recovery was frozen. Justice Pepall of the Court of Appeal found this created a serious risk of unfairness, lifted the stay on Ian’s obligation, and ordered that Barb pay Ian only the net balance of about $584,000 plus interest, while continuing ongoing support.

In addition, this case has reignited a doctrinal fault line in Ontario family law: whether discretionary trust interests in certain circumstances are excluded property. Bound by Shinder v. Shinder, 2018 ONCA 717, Justice Sharma excluded Barb’s interest in her family trust but signaled that appellate reconsideration is welcome.

For Ontario family law lawyers, Lang-Newlands is a lesson in the power of offers, the weight of conduct, and the uncertainty of trust exclusions.

The Trial: Equalization, Exclusions, and Support

Barb was the daughter of a successful businessman and a beneficiary of the Newlands Family Trust (NFT). Ian, who had not worked since 2012, pressed for inclusion of Barb’s trust interests in the equalization calculation.

Justice Sharma identified three key issues:

1. Equalization of net family properties.
2. Ian’s unjust enrichment claim.
3. Spousal support.

The Shinder Bind

The central dispute was the NFT. Ian argued that Barb’s beneficial interest was “property” and includable in her net family property. Barb argued that even if it was property, it was excluded as a “gift” under s. 4(2) of the Family Law Act.

• In Shinder v. Shinder, the Court of Appeal held that a discretionary trust interest could be treated as a “gift” and therefore excluded from net family property under s. 4(2) of the Family Law Act.
• Justice Sharma followed Shinder as binding authority and excluded Barb’s interest in the NFT on that basis.
• At the same time, as the Court of Appeal here summarized, “the trial judge had concerns with the Shinder decision and did an alternative analysis” assuming that Shinder might not govern. In that alternative scenario, Barb’s trust interest would have been included in her NFP, producing a dramatically higher equalization obligation (≈ $16.5M). The trial judge ordered that the equalization payment owing was $1.183,000.
• On the stay motion to the Court of Appeal, Pepall J.A. observed that there was an arguable case that the trial judge misapprehended Shinder, underscoring that the trust exclusion issue will be squarely addressed on appeal.

The Numbers

• If Shinder applies (binding): Barb owes Ian $1.183M in equalization and $1.642M in retroactive support, while Ian owes Barb $2.241M in post-separation adjustments. Net outcome: Barb owes ≈ $584K, plus ongoing monthly spousal support of $25,649.
• If Shinder does not apply: Barb owes ≈ $18M equalization, plus retroactive support, less the same adjustments — net ≈ $16.5M.

The Costs Decision: When Offers and Conduct Control

Following trial, Barb sought $3M in costs. Ian sought to defer or reserve costs pending appeal.

Justice Sharma’s costs ruling turned heavily on Barb’s offers.

• December 22, 2021: Barb offered to resolve for roughly $10M in equalization, waive credit for $2M in advances which she had made to Ian, and resolve certain property issues, with no spousal support.
• November 15, 2023: She repeated the $10M equalization term, added $1M in annual non-taxable payments, and continued to waive the $2M in advances.
• November 24, 2023: She added still further benefits (a $3M property trust and exclusive use of the Lower Cottage until 2030), though this was not a valid Rule 18 offer because it expired before trial.

The court found that the December 2021 and November 2023 offers both qualified as Rule 18 offers (now r. 24(12)). Importantly, Barb never withdrew them, and she obtained an outcome more favourable than both Rule 18 (now r.24(12)) offers.

Justice Sharma held that the cost consequences flowed from the first Rule 18 (now r.24(12) offer on December 22, 2021. A later, more generous offer did not rescind the earlier one; to hold otherwise, he reasoned, would perversely penalize litigants for showing greater willingness to compromise.

By contrast, Ian’s offers came late (September–November 2023), expired before trial, and demanded outcomes far exceeding both the judgment and even the trial judge’s “alternative analysis.” None qualified as Rule 18 (now r.24(12) offers.

The Appeal: The Automatic Stay Problem

When Ian filed his appeal, Rule 63.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. That rule automatically stays money judgments, but not support orders. The result was a classic family law asymmetry:

• Barb’s obligations: The trial judge ordered her to pay Ian ≈ $2.825M (equalization of $1.18M plus retroactive support of $1.64M).
  • The support component was immediately enforceable.
  • The equalization was presumptively stayed.
  • Ian, however, argued that because Barb had not appealed the equalization award, it was “due and owing” right away.
• Ian’s obligations: He was ordered to repay Barb ≈ $2.24M in post-separation adjustments. That amount was clearly caught by the stay.

This left Ian insisting that Barb pay him both support and equalization immediately, while his $2.24M repayment to her was frozen.

Pepall J.A.’s Pragmatic Remedy

Barb brought a motion seeking directions. She asked the Court of Appeal either to:

1. Recharacterize her $2M in advances as support (so they would fall outside the stay), or
2. Lift the stay on Ian’s obligation so she could set off what he owed against her obligations.

Key Rulings:

• No recharacterization: Justice Pepall refused. Barb herself had resisted treating her advances as support at trial, and she could not reverse course now.
• Serious risk of non-payment: Citing Ian’s record of debt, dishonesty, and mismanagement, the court found a “serious risk” that Barb would never recover her $2.24M if the stay remained.
• Solution: The stay on Ian’s obligation was lifted. Barb was ordered to pay only the net difference — $584K plus interest — along with ongoing monthly support.
• Appeal expedited: The court fast-tracked the appeal to ensure a timely resolution.

Takeaway

This ruling underscores how automatic stays under r. 63.01 can distort family law outcomes when both spouses owe each other money. The Court of Appeal confirmed its willingness to use its discretion to lift a stay in the interests of justice, especially where one party risks being left with an unenforceable judgment.

Practice Lessons

Rule 24 (formally Rule 18) offers are powerful weapons: Barb’s 2021 offer framed the cost analysis. Because it exceeded the trial result, it triggered full indemnity. For counsel, the lesson is to draft offers carefully, revisit them often, and explain their potential impact to clients in plain terms.

Conduct can be as important as law: False evidence, delay tactics, and collateral disputes were not minor irritants — they shaped the costs outcome. Justice Sharma emphasized that litigation conduct is expressly relevant under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules (para. [28]) and then, in paras. [29]–[42], catalogued Ian’s unreasonable behaviour — from false evidence to shifting positions mid-trial — as a notable reason for the costs award

Costs can eclipse equalization: Barb’s $2.8M costs award was more than double her equalization liability of $1.183M. While her net liability was only about $584K after offsets, the point is clear: in high-net-worth cases, cost exposure can rival or exceed the property division itself.

Automatic stays require flexibility: The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that family law is different than other litigation. A rigid stay of monetary orders would have distorted fairness. Instead, the court tailored relief to preserve balance pending appeal.

Shinder remains unsettled — and clients need protection: Trial judges are bound by Shinder, but appellate scrutiny seems to be on the horizon. For practitioners, this uncertainty is a reason to advise high-asset clients with trust interests to enter into marriage contracts or cohabitation agreements. Domestic contracts can expressly define whether trust interests are excluded from equalization, reducing the risk of million-dollar litigation over discretionary trust interests.

Conclusion

Lang-Newlands v. Newlands is a rare case that blends doctrine, procedure, and practice. It shows how reasonable offers and litigation conduct can eclipse even the largest substantive claims. It highlights how appellate courts manage fairness under Rule 63.01. And it forces us to confront whether Shinder correctly defines the law on trust exclusions.

For Ontario family law lawyers, the message is clear:

• Use Rule 24 offers strategically.
• Manage your client’s litigation conduct.
• Warn of the cost consequences.
• And, for trust beneficiaries, consider domestic contracts to clarify exclusions.

Because in cases like Lang-Newlands, costs and credibility can matter more than the assets themselves.

Let’s continue to elevate the practice of family law in Ontario!

Connect with us on LinkedIn.

Legal Disclaimer: See Privacy Policy

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Consult with a qualified family law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog.