Alawi Khayyam Mohideen

This decision concerns the costs of a two-day family law trial.

The applicant mother sought costs of $11,769.90, while the respondent father disputed this and sought $13,392.

The court found the mother to be the successful party, as many issues were resolved in her favour or aligned with her initial offers.

The father's conduct, including attempting to raise new claims at trial and making a late, unreasonable offer, was deemed unreasonable.

The court emphasized that costs serve to indemnify successful litigants, encourage settlement, and discourage inappropriate behaviour.

The father was ordered to pay the mother $11,769.90 in costs.

The Applicant Mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) brought motions for restraining orders against the Respondent Father under s. 46 of the Family Law Act.

The motions sought to restrain the father from coming within 500 metres of the mother's home and the children's locations, and from communicating with them.

The court reviewed the history of family violence, including the father's criminal charges and breaches of recognizance, and a period of attempted reconciliation.

The court accepted the children's expressed views and preferences, which indicated fear and distress regarding the father.

The court found that the father's repeated breaches constituted a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, amounting to family violence, and that there were reasonable grounds to fear for the safety of the mother and children.

The motions were granted.

The Applicant sought costs following the Respondent's successful motion to set aside an ex parte temporary order.

The court found the Applicant guilty of bad faith conduct due to material misrepresentations made to the court and unreasonable behaviour, including false allegations of abuse and non-disclosure.

Despite the Respondent's offer to settle not strictly complying with Rule 18(14), it was considered a bona fide attempt at compromise under Rule 18(16).

The Applicant's financial hardship was not considered a mitigating factor given the finding of bad faith and similar modest means of both parties.

The court awarded the Respondent full recovery costs of $8,300, payable forthwith.

The Applicant Father brought an urgent ex parte motion for a restraining order and custody of the children, alleging abuse by the Respondent Mother.

The Respondent Mother brought a cross-motion to set aside the ex parte orders and for care of the children.

The court found the Applicant's affidavit contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding primary caregiving, abuse allegations, and the children's habitual residence.

The court set aside the ex parte orders, granted temporary primary residence to the Respondent Mother in Scarborough, and dismissed the Applicant's request for a restraining order, finding no credible evidence of abuse or reasonable grounds for fear for safety.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside an order validating service of a divorce application outside Canada and the resulting final divorce order.

The court considered whether the orders could be set aside under rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules on the basis of fraud, mistake, or absence of notice.

The court found that the applicant failed to disclose material facts when seeking validation of service, including knowledge of the respondent’s residential address in Ontario and information regarding her expected return to Canada.

This material non‑disclosure occurred in the context of a motion brought without notice and constituted fraud on the court process.

As a result, the order validating service and the final divorce order were both set aside.