Aida Pasha

This appeal concerns the costs consequences of protracted family law litigation between K.K. (the husband) and M.M. (the wife).

The Court of Appeal addresses whether the trial judge erred in awarding full recovery costs to the wife, staying prior costs orders made in favour of the husband, and whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The majority upholds the trial judge’s costs award and the stay of prior costs orders, finding exceptional circumstances due to the husband’s bad faith.

A dissent would reinstate the stayed costs orders, holding that the trial judge exceeded her authority under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

This trial decision addressed financial issues between divorced parents, specifically the determination of the applicant's income for child support and the imputation of income to the respondent.

The court upheld the parties' Separation Agreement, which stipulated using the applicant's T4 employment income for child support calculations, rejecting the respondent's unsubstantiated claims of hidden income through stock options or restricted share units (RSUs).

The court accepted expert and employer testimony confirming the applicant's T4 accurately reflected his total compensation.

Furthermore, the court imputed an annual income of $35,000 to the respondent, finding her intentionally unemployed or under-employed, and ordered her to pay child support arrears.

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.

The appellant sought to appeal a trial judge's decision regarding spousal support, arguing that the indefinite support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, subject to review, constituted an error.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, affirming the significant deference owed to family support decisions.

The court found no material error, serious misapprehension of evidence, or error in law in the trial judge's reasoning or result, noting that the appellant's objection primarily concerned the weighing of factors, which is not a basis for appellate intervention.

The applicant mother sought property interests (resulting trust, unjust enrichment/joint family venture), spousal support, and s. 7 child expenses.

The respondent father denied these claims.

The court dismissed the battery claim due to deemed admissions.

The court found no resulting trust or unjust enrichment, dismissing property claims.

Spousal support entitlement was found but the payable amount was zero.

The court ordered the father to contribute to past and future tutoring expenses and a psychological assessment for the children, and to pay ongoing table child support.

The applicant father initiated a parenting review seeking joint parental decision-making, week-about equal parenting time for their 13-year-old son J.K., J.K.'s enrollment in a Brampton high school, international travel permission, and modification of a restraining order.

The respondent mother opposed these requests, seeking to preserve her exclusive decision-making authority, maintain the current parenting schedule, and enroll J.K. in a Toronto school.

The court, conducting a fresh inquiry into J.K.'s best interests under the Divorce Act, found the father had made efforts to address past family violence and parental alienation but still exhibited problematic behaviors undermining the mother's parenting.

The court increased the father's parenting time incrementally but denied his request for joint decision-making and J.K.'s transfer to a Brampton school, citing the need for stability and the mother's demonstrated child-focused decision-making.

Travel restrictions were partially lifted for the father (within Ontario) and fully for the mother.

The appellant (father) appealed a trial judge's order that reversed the primary residence of his son, J.K., from him to the respondent (mother), and granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility.

The trial judge had found the father to be abusive and not credible, and the mother credible and a victim of parental alienation created by the father.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the best interests test and in failing to meaningfully consider the recommendations of a court-appointed assessor, Dr. Goldstein, whose reports were largely disregarded due to findings by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on best interests and credibility.

While disagreeing with the trial judge's interpretation that family law proceedings are not "civil proceedings" under s. 36(3) of the RHPA (which prohibits admissibility of certain regulatory records), the Court found that the admissible facts (complaint, investigation, public undertakings) were sufficient to justify giving no weight to Dr. Goldstein's opinions.

In supplementary reasons following a trial, the court determined the quantum and duration of spousal support owed by the applicant to the respondent.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, factoring in imputed incomes for both parties and changing parenting arrangements over the years.

The applicant was ordered to pay $78,261 in retrospective spousal support and $6,053 monthly in prospective spousal support for an indefinite duration, subject to review.

The applicant was also ordered to maintain a $1,000,000 life insurance policy to secure his support obligations.

The appellant father (K.K.) sought a stay pending appeal of a trial judge's order that changed the primary residence of the parties' son (J.K.) to the mother (M.M.) and restricted the father's contact, based on findings of parental alienation.

The mother opposed the stay and sought security for costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal (Motions Judge) applied the three-part test for a stay, finding a serious question regarding the trial judge's exclusion of assessor reports due to regulatory findings against the assessor.

However, the court determined that the irreparable harm and balance of convenience factors did not favour a stay, as it would disrupt the new living arrangements established in the child's best interests.

Both the father's motion for a stay and the mother's motion for security for costs were dismissed.

The applicant father and respondent mother engaged in a protracted high-conflict family law trial regarding parenting and support for their two children.

The mother alleged a history of severe family violence and coercive control, including the father gaslighting her and manipulating medical professionals into diagnosing her with bipolar disorder.

The father alleged the mother was alienating the children.

The court found the father entirely lacking in credibility, accepted the mother's evidence of abuse, and found the father had engaged in a relentless campaign of parental alienation and psychological abuse.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children, with a temporary no-contact order between the father and the younger child.

The court also imputed income to both parties and ordered the father to pay retrospective and ongoing child support, finding the mother entitled to spousal support.

The respondent (mother) sought costs of $18,109.39 arising from her motion to change a final parenting order.

The applicant (father) requested nominal costs or payment at $50 per month.

The court found the mother was the successful party, having obtained an order for supervised access after the father failed to file a response to the motion to change, failed to attend at Assignment Court and a settlement conference, and failed to pay prior costs orders.

The court awarded costs of $6,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, taking into account the father's limited financial means and his unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation.

In this family law trial, the court determined issues of decision-making, parenting time, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, property division, and support.

The court ordered joint decision-making for the two younger children, and joint decision-making for the oldest child with the applicant having final say.

The children will reside primarily with the applicant, with the respondent having alternate weekends and Wednesday evenings with the younger children.

The applicant was granted exclusive possession of the matrimonial home until July 2021, after which it will be sold.

The respondent's income was imputed at $45,000 for child support purposes, and the applicant's claim for spousal support was dismissed.

Following a trial regarding child support, spousal support, and section 7 expenses, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The court noted that neither party matched or exceeded their respective offers to settle, and there was mixed success on the issues.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

This family law trial addressed issues of custody, access, imputed income, child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, equalization, travel orders, and insurance.

The court ordered joint custody with allocated decision-making, granting the father authority over education and sports during his access time, and the mother over health and religion.

Primary residence remained with the mother.

Access was significantly increased for the father, including mid-week and shared holiday time, and daily phone contact.

The court imputed higher income to the father for 2013-2014 for support purposes and ordered spousal support for the mother for ten years.

An equalization payment was ordered from the mother to the father, and travel restrictions were placed on both parents regarding taking the child outside Canada until age 14.

The father sought costs following a bifurcated parenting trial where the court largely adopted the recommendations of a joint custody and access assessment.

The mother had initially sought sole custody but changed her position to shared custody during the trial.

The court found the mother's approach unreasonable and noted her counsel contributed to unnecessarily extending the trial.

The father was awarded $50,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements, plus the full cost of the expert's court attendance.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' child and highly restricted access for the respondent father, as well as permission to travel internationally without his consent.

The father sought joint custody and expanded access.

The court found that the mother had historically attempted to eliminate the father from the child's life and that joint custody was in the child's best interests to foster a cooperative environment.

The court ordered joint custody, primary residence with the mother, a graduated schedule of expanded access for the father, and prohibited international travel without consent due to the mother's strong ties to India.

The applicant mother brought a motion for exclusive possession of the parties' subsidized three-bedroom home and for a temporary parenting schedule for their two young children.

The parties had a history of domestic altercations and frequent moves.

The court found it was in the children's best interests to return to the subsidized home with the mother, as her native status facilitated the housing application.

The father was ordered to vacate the home and was granted a temporary parenting schedule of alternate weekends and Wednesday overnights, with exchanges to occur at daycare to minimize contact between the parents.