detailed. She concluded that more disclosure would not have
changed the outcome of the mediation for the appellant, and that
the assets that the respondent did not disclose were not significant. That finding was available on the record before us, and
there is no basis for us to interfere with it.
 Furthermore, the finding of significance, as the trial judge
correctly stated, is only the first step in a s. 56(4) analysis: Virc v.
Blair (2014), 119 O.R. (3d) 721,  O.J. No. 2301, 2014 ONCA
392, at para. 52. Once a party seeking to set aside a separation
agreement has established that s. 56(4) applies, the court must
still determine whether it should exercise its discretion to set
aside the agreement. The criteria set out in Dochuk v. Dochuk,
 O.J. No. 363, 44 R.F.L. (4th) 97 (Gen. Div.), at paras. 18-19,
provide a useful guide for this exercise of discretion. Although the
trial judge did not proceed to this further step, and did not need
to given her finding that s. 56(4) was not engaged, her conclusion
on that question would be obvious from her treatment of the
various Dochuk factors. In particular, her findings concerning
the absence of duress and the substantial benefits that the appellant received under the separation agreement indicate that the
trial judge would not have exercised her discretion to set aside
 The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the
amount of $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.
Marcos Limited Building Design Consultants v.
Lad et al.
[Indexed as: Marcos Limited Building Design Consultants v. Lad]
Superior Court of Justice, Seppi J.
October 3, 2018
Civil procedure — Costs — Costs against non-party — Non-party
principal of unsuccessful plaintiff in construction lien action lying,
altering and fraudulently creating documents to advance plaintiff’s
claim — Principal’s conduct amounting to abuse of process — Costs
awarded against principal personally.
Civil procedure — Costs — Full indemnity costs — Principal of
unsuccessful plaintiff in construction lien action lying, altering and
fraudulently creating documents to advance plaintiff’s claim — Defendants
awarded full indemnity costs on basis of principal’s egregious conduct.