Adela Crossley

This decision addresses the costs of a decade-long family law proceeding.

The Respondent, M.M., sought full recovery of costs, alleging the Applicant, K.K., acted in bad faith.

The court found K.K. engaged in egregious bad faith conduct, including concealing financial information, presenting fabricated evidence, manipulating third parties, and repeatedly breaching court orders to inflict emotional, psychological, and financial harm on M.M. and alienate the children.

Consequently, the court awarded M.M. full recovery of trial-related costs and certain pre-trial costs, totaling $211,441, and stayed the enforcement of previous costs orders against M.M. due to K.K.'s oppressive conduct.

This endorsement addresses a procedural conference concerning the unilateral cancellation of a motion date booked via Calendly.

The court emphasized that opposing counsel cannot unilaterally cancel a scheduled hearing date without consent, as per the Central West (CW) Notice to the Profession and Parties.

The judge clarified that the court relies on counsel's undertakings in Calendly regarding attempts to agree on mutually convenient dates, and that a consent from opposing counsel is not a prerequisite for booking a motion.

The court strongly condemned the abuse of the Calendly scheduling system, outlining various forms of misconduct, and warned of serious consequences, including cost awards or other sanctions, for non-compliance with scheduling rules and undertakings.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's application to set aside their separation agreement.

The wife brought a cross-motion for financial disclosure.

The wife argued the agreement should be set aside due to financial non-disclosure, duress, undue influence, and unconscionability, alleging the husband dictated the terms and threatened her.

The court found genuine issues for trial regarding the validity of the agreement, noting the husband's failure to provide financial disclosure and evasiveness during cross-examination.

The court dismissed the husband's motion for summary judgment, granted the wife's motion for financial disclosure, and ordered the husband to pay costs on a full recovery basis.

The respondent husband brought a motion seeking the production of the applicant wife's former counsel's file.

The wife opposed, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the wife had implicitly waived privilege by relying on her state of mind and legal advice to seek to set aside the separation agreement, and by disclosing details of her discussions with her lawyer during cross-examination.

The court ordered the wife to authorize the release of the file.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order for the applicant to contribute to joint debts and to vacate a jointly-owned cottage property.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for debt contribution, finding the applicant lacked the present ability to pay and that an accounting could be made at trial.

However, the court granted the applicant sole vacant possession of the cottage property, requiring him to assume responsibility for its ongoing costs and arrange insurance, dispensing with the respondent's consent for insurance.

The court also enjoined the respondent from disturbing the applicant's enjoyment of the property.

The applicant sought interim spousal support of $9,000 per month, while the respondent contended the appropriate amount was $4,370.

The court found both parties were not entirely candid regarding their financial disclosures.

After imputing incomes to both parties and considering their needs and ability to pay, the court ordered the respondent to pay $5,260 per month in temporary spousal support starting January 1, 2021.

The applicant was made responsible for cottage expenses, including a $500 monthly contribution to a line of credit.

Costs were reserved pending resolution of disclosure issues.

The parties were scheduled to proceed with motions, but both filed affidavits and exhibits that grossly exceeded the page limitations set out in a prior Case Conference Order and the court's Notices to the Profession.

Neither party sought leave for the voluminous filings.

The court vacated the motions, holding counsel responsible for the non-compliance, and required the parties to seek leave via a Form 14B motion before the motions could be rescheduled.

The court also directed counsel to provide a copy of the endorsement to their clients and noted the court's ability to order lawyers not to charge fees for such work.

The Applicant, Lovedeep Kang, withdrew her action against the Third Party, Jagjit Kaur Bhullar.

Ms. Bhullar then sought full or substantial indemnity costs against the Applicant, alleging bad faith.

The Applicant argued for no costs, citing a bona fide claim and financial hardship.

The court found no bad faith, assessed costs on a partial indemnity basis, and considered the Applicant's financial circumstances but found insufficient evidence of hardship.

The court ultimately awarded Ms. Bhullar $6,000.00 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable at the conclusion of the main action, finding the claimed costs disproportionate to the stage of the action when it was abandoned.

Following a five-day trial addressing issues of parental mobility, child support, and access, the court awarded costs to the successful party (the mother).

The mother sought full recovery of $37,516 while the father sought either $51,767 or $31,060.

The court determined that the mother was the successful party on three of four primary issues: mobility (relocation to Australia), access, and the child support reduction request.

The father was partially successful on the income imputation issue.

The court declined to apply Rule 18 offer to settle provisions as none of the offers met the statutory requirements.

The court awarded partial indemnification of $25,000 to the mother, with $12,500 to be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office as part of the child support order.

A trial decision addressing custody, relocation, access, and child support in a family law matter involving twin children.

The mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the children from Canada to Australia to live with her new husband.

The father opposed the relocation and sought joint custody and extensive access.

The court granted the mother sole custody and permission to relocate to Australia, finding the move was in the children's best interests.

The court ordered a phased access schedule for the father, commencing with day visits and progressing to overnight visits, with international travel to the United Kingdom permitted from age nine.

The court imputed income to the father for child support purposes based on his salary and family gifts, ordering monthly child support of $1,624.

The moving party father brought a motion seeking summer access to his two children in Egypt, the UAE, or the USA.

The responding party mother opposed the motion, citing a previous incident where the children disappeared for 10 days in Egypt, outstanding criminal charges against the father in Canada for alleged physical abuse, and the fact that Egypt and the UAE are not signatories to the Hague Convention.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father had shown disregard for the Canadian court system and the children's welfare, and that the risk of the children not being returned to Canada outweighed the benefits of the proposed international access.

The respondent, Mr. Kay, brought a motion to set aside a divorce judgment granted to the applicant, Ms. Akomani, on April 9, 2018.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment, considering promptness, explanation for default, arguable defence, potential prejudice, and the integrity of the administration of justice.

It was found that Ms. Akomani obtained the divorce without full disclosure, potentially by mistake or fraud, regarding Mr. Kay's whereabouts and his prior motion to extend time.

Mr. Kay acted promptly and demonstrated an arguable defence regarding the validity of the marriage.

The court granted Mr. Kay's application, setting aside the divorce judgment and allowing him to file an Answer denying the marriage.

Costs were reserved for written submissions.

The applicant sought spousal support following the breakdown of her marriage to the respondent.

The applicant had immigrated to Canada from Mexico, was sponsored by the respondent, and they married in 2012.

After the applicant's refugee claim was denied, she returned to Mexico and waited approximately 3.5 years for her sponsorship to be processed.

Upon her return to Canada in 2015, the parties cohabited for nine months before separating.

The applicant sought $1,500 per month for three years, citing the respondent's sponsorship undertaking and her need for retraining.

The respondent argued the applicant was not entitled to support and should be self-sufficient.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on both a non-compensatory needs basis and a contractual basis arising from the sponsorship agreement.

The court awarded $1,000 per month for 18 months (December 1, 2018 to June 30, 2020), declining to impute income to the applicant and declining to award retroactive support due to the potential social assistance debt repayment obligation.

This is a costs endorsement following a family law trial concerning custody, access, child support, and the mother's ability to move the child's residence and travel internationally.

The parties settled most issues during trial, with the mother achieving substantial success on the remaining contested issues regarding relocation and international travel.

The court awarded costs to the mother, finding her to be the successful party while considering the divided success on settled issues and the father's unreasonable behaviour in underpaying child support and failing to satisfy a prior costs order.

A trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a two-year-old child born to parties who married in Egypt and subsequently immigrated to Canada.

The parties resolved custody (awarded to mother), communication terms, government documentation access, and child support during trial.

The court determined four remaining contested issues: whether the mother could relocate the child's primary residence outside Ontario, travel to non-Hague Convention countries, travel outside Canada in emergencies, and whether a police enforcement order should be made.

The court found the mother credible and reliable, rejected the father's concerns about her trustworthiness, and granted the mother flexibility to relocate within Canada with notice, travel internationally for vacation purposes, and travel in emergencies without prior notice.

The court declined to issue a police enforcement order.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial concerning parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support for two children.

The mother sought $9,040 in costs while the father sought $4,221.

The court found the mother was the more successful party overall, particularly on custody and child support issues.

The father's unreasonable behaviour, including failure to provide complete financial disclosure and refusal to sever the custody issue, was a significant factor in the costs determination.

The court awarded the mother $6,500 in costs inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $500 per month starting March 1, 2017, and dismissed the father's costs claim.

This trial decision addresses parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support for two young children following the separation of the parties.

The mother sought sole custody with specified access for the father, child support based on an imputed income of $100,000, and spousal support of $950 monthly for three years.

The father sought sole custody and child support, opposing the mother's claims.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding her to be the primary caregiver in a stable home environment.

The court imputed income to both parties: $16,000 to the mother (recognizing her part-time work capacity while pursuing education) and $67,652 to the father (based on his excavator income plus unreported business income from his driving school, grossed-up for tax purposes).

The court awarded child support of $1,005 monthly retroactive to May 1, 2015, and spousal support of $200 monthly indefinite (subject to review after five years), recognizing the mother's strong compensatory claim based on her childcare role during the marriage.

The applicant mother commenced proceedings in Ontario seeking sole custody and permission to relocate to Texas, despite a prior Florida order governing custody.

The respondent father consented to the relocation shortly after, and the mother moved to Texas.

The parties subsequently consented to dismiss the Ontario application and answer, leaving costs to be determined.

The court found the mother acted unreasonably in launching the Ontario proceedings and maintaining that Ontario had jurisdiction after moving to Texas.

The mother was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs to the father.

This is a costs decision arising from a trial decision released on April 13, 2016, in which the father was ordered to pay child support of $458 per month and spousal support of $967 per month based on an assessed annual income of $50,800.

The mother sought costs of $7,288.50, while the father requested no costs be awarded.

The court found the mother was the successful party and awarded costs in her favour, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules, the mother's reasonable behaviour, the father's unreasonable litigation conduct including late financial disclosure, and a prior costs order against the father that remained unpaid.

Trial decision determining child and spousal support obligations following the breakdown of a short marriage between a Russian national and a Mexican-Canadian permanent resident.

The court fixed the respondent's income at $50,800 per annum and ordered child support of $458 per month and indefinite spousal support of $967 per month, both retroactive to June 1, 2015.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support on compensatory, non-compensatory, and contractual grounds, particularly given the respondent's immigration sponsorship undertaking and subsequent withdrawal of the sponsorship application.

The respondent was in default of temporary support orders and costs awards at the time of trial.