Princess Consuela: or why no one ever gets away Scott-free when bad faith is involved

By Ryan C. Baker

In a recent 2025 Ontario Superior Court decision, Scott v Scott, a rare full indemnity costs award was made by Justice Heeney against a husband whose conduct crossed the line from banal unreasonableness to egregious bad faith. A key aspect of the ruling was the husband’s baseless allegation that his ex-wife had earned millions of dollars as an online pornographic actress under the pseudonym “Princess Consuela”.

The husband’s accusation seemed to be a calculated attempt to increase his claim for an equalization of net family property payment following the parties’ separation. The court was clear in its response: this was an obvious case of bad faith, and the appropriate consequence was full indemnity cost recovery.

Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules

In Ontario, costs in family law matters are governed by Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules. Under Rule 24(1), the successful party is theoretically entitled to costs, the quantum of which, is determined after considering multiple factors, including whether or not bad faith conduct impacted the case.

What Happened in Scott v Scott?

In this case, the husband advanced a claim that the wife had earned $3.8 million from selling pornographic videos online. Based on this claim, he sought an equalization payment of $1.9 million. In support, he showed the court 39 explicit images allegedly taken from her pornographic videos.

The husband's ham-fisted attempt at overvaluing his wife’s income was quickly disregarded by Justice Heeney, who pointed out that every one of the 39 images relied upon by the husband as evidence did not include the woman’s face. In most, the screenshot had seemingly been purposely taken to avoid the face or obscure it. In others, the woman wore a mask that made it impossible to identify her. Justice Heeney found that this omission was not simply incidental; but deliberate.  In the court’s view, this was an attempt to mislead the truth-finding process.

The court concluded that the husband had acted in bad faith. Citing the Court of Appeal in Scalia v Scalia, Justice Heeney applied the established definition of bad faith in the family law context: conduct intended “to inflict harm or deceive.” Both elements, the court found, were present.

In addition to the evidentiary concerns, the court took into account the emotional and reputational damage the wife suffered as a result of the claims. The allegations caused her significant distress, public embarrassment, and unreasonably lengthened the litigation process, unnecessarily increasing legal fees for both parties.

Full Indemnity Costs

The wife was found to be the successful party on all major issues, including the equalization claim. Her offers to settle were closer to the eventual outcome than the husband’s, reinforcing her entitlement to costs under Rule 24.

Justice Heeney decided that the husband’s actions were clearly “intended to inflict emotional, reputational and financial harm to the wife.” Adding that they also worked to “deceive the court.” Accordingly, the court ordered the husband to pay the wife’s costs on a full recovery basis.

The Take-Away

It can be easy to lose the forest for the trees when caught up in high-conflict, emotionally charged, litigation.  Maximizing cost recovery and minimizing adverse costs awards are goals that are both dependent upon developing an effective and adaptable legal strategy that is anchored in the law, and supported by the evidence, throughout the litigation process.

If you – or someone you know – is experiencing a high-conflict separation, call Ryan C. Baker at 519.836.1510 or email him at rbaker@sorbaralaw.com.