Alexandra Abramian

Following an urgent family law motion granting the wife exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs on the basis that the respondent acted in bad faith by returning to the home immediately after being acquitted of criminal charges, knowing the applicant was bound by an undertaking restricting proximity and communication.

The court reviewed the surrounding circumstances and prior findings that the respondent’s actions demonstrated poor judgment and created an urgent situation requiring court intervention.

Applying Rule 24(1)(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith.

Full indemnity costs were therefore awarded to the applicant.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property following the breakdown of the parties' marriage.

The respondent argued the marriage was void ab initio because the applicant's foreign divorce certificate was forged, and alternatively sought an unequal division of net family property.

The court found the foreign divorce certificate was valid and the parties were legally married.

The court also held that an equal division of net family property was not unconscionable despite the respondent's greater financial contributions and the applicant's financial support of his overseas family.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $147,616.00.

The respondent father, a resident of France, brought a motion to strike the applicant mother's claim for child support in Ontario, arguing that an existing French court order already addressed the issue.

The court applied the Muscutt factors and found a real and substantial connection to Ontario, as the children habitually reside there.

Distinguishing previous case law, the court held that because custody and access were also being legitimately litigated in Ontario, it was appropriate to assume jurisdiction over child support to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

The appellant transferred over $780,000 to an offshore account after a non-dissipation order was made in a matrimonial proceeding, claiming it was to repay a legitimate pre-separation debt.

The motion judge found the appellant in contempt.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the contempt finding, holding that the motion judge erred by failing to make specific findings regarding the legitimacy of the debt and its impact on the equalization of net family property.

The respondent was granted liberty to bring a renewed motion for contempt where these issues could be properly determined.

Following a trial determining beneficial ownership of a former matrimonial home, the successful applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis exceeding $35,000.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to alleged unfairness, financial disparity, litigation conduct, and the nature of the applicant’s settlement offer.

The court rejected most of the respondent’s submissions and confirmed the applicant’s entitlement to costs as the largely successful party.

However, because the applicant did not fully achieve the terms of his settlement offer, the court limited recovery to partial indemnity costs.

After adjusting hourly rates and reducing excessive preparation time, the court fixed costs at $19,000 plus disbursements and taxes.

Following a family law trial addressing equalization, retroactive child support, and entitlement to spousal support, the court determined costs of the proceeding.

The respondent at trial was found to have achieved overall success, particularly on the primary issue of entitlement to spousal support, which had been the principal barrier to settlement.

The court found the opposing party’s conduct—including failure to pay ordered support, delayed disclosure, and uncivil communications—was unreasonable but did not rise to the level of bad faith required for full indemnity costs under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Considering the overall success and litigation conduct, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, subject to deductions for conferences where no costs order had been reserved.

In a family law motion, the moving party sought reinstatement of an existing parenting arrangement after the other parent unilaterally retained the child and refused to follow the court-ordered residential schedule.

Evidence indicated escalating conflict, the child’s refusal to return to the moving party’s residence, and concerning conduct by the responding parent, including hostility toward the moving party and disregard for court authority.

The court found that the responding parent’s behaviour undermined the child’s welfare and demonstrated an inability to participate in joint decision‑making.

Exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, the court varied the prior joint custody order to grant the moving party interim sole custody while maintaining the existing residential schedule.

The matter was urgently referred to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to investigate and provide recommendations.

In a family law proceeding, the moving party brought a motion seeking a declaration of contempt after the responding party transferred substantial funds to an offshore account contrary to a prior non-dissipation order.

The court found the order was clear, the transfers were admitted, and the conduct was wilful or at least wilfully blind.

The responding party’s argument that the transfers merely repaid a debt and were done without understanding the order was rejected.

The court held that court orders must be obeyed and that paying a creditor does not justify breaching a preservation order during ongoing support and property claims.

A declaration of contempt was made, and the responding party was given 60 days to purge the contempt by paying the funds into court.

The appellant, the aunt of two orphaned children, sought an extension of time to file materials to be added as a party to a custody proceeding after missing a peremptory deadline.

The motion judge denied the extension, prioritizing the scheduled trial date and the children's need for stability.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decision, noting the appellant had previously been involved but failed to take the necessary steps in time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The wife brought a motion for leave to appeal an order finding her in contempt for failing to comply with undertakings and reattend an examination for discovery.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order and noting the wife's attempts to thwart proper disclosure.