Alex Pazaratz

In a family law matter involving parenting and financial issues, the court strongly criticized the parties' prolonged reliance on temporary motions and their failure to advance the case to a final resolution through trial.

Despite a two-year litigation history marked by delays, outstanding disclosure, and uncompleted questioning, the parties brought new motions and cross-motions.

The judge emphasized that endless temporary motions disservice children and burden the court, urging parties to move towards a comprehensive oral hearing.

Ultimately, the parties withdrew their respective motions by consent and were ordered to schedule a Trial Scheduling Conference.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from a December 13, 2023 motion where the Applicant mother sought leave to file fresh evidence in an appeal of an arbitration award concerning children's schooling.

The mother was substantially successful on her motion, obtaining leave to file evidence from one therapist and an updated Voice of the Child report, while her request for evidence from a parenting coordinator was dismissed.

The Respondent father's cross-motion was dismissed.

The court found the mother entitled to costs, but not full recovery, due to issues with proportionality and the use of multiple counsel.

The father was ordered to pay $15,000.00 in costs to the mother.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the applicant mother's motion for interim changes to parenting arrangements, including primary residence, schooling, decision-making authority, and child support, just three months before a scheduled 10-day trial.

The court found the mother's motion lacked evidence and justification for such significant changes to a long-standing status quo.

Despite the mother's financial circumstances, the court ordered her to pay the respondent father $14,000.00 in costs, emphasizing that litigants are responsible for the choices they make and the expenses they create, particularly when pursuing unreasonable claims, and that impecuniosity does not shield a party from costs liability.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking an interim order to change the primary residence and school of her eight-year-old son, Nathan, from the father to her.

This motion was brought despite a 10-day trial on the same issue being scheduled in three months.

The child had been primarily residing with the father for two years following serious mental health issues in the mother's household.

The mother argued the father engaged in "self-help" by not returning the child and sought to rely on certain factual findings from an OCL report.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding insufficient compelling evidence to justify disrupting the two-year status quo, especially given the imminent trial where all evidence could be fully tested.

The decision emphasized the child's need for stability and the importance of maintaining a successful status quo in interim parenting orders.

This endorsement addresses a long-standing family law dispute concerning parenting issues and jurisdiction, marked by the respondent father's persistent non-participation and procedural abuses.

The father, residing in Saskatchewan, had previously obtained a custody order in Jordan and initiated parallel proceedings in Saskatchewan, seeking to have the children, who live in Hamilton with the applicant mother, returned to Jordan.

The Saskatchewan application was dismissed due to the father's non-appearance and lack of jurisdiction.

The Ontario court, frustrated by the father's continued failure to participate in the Hamilton proceedings, refused to schedule a trial.

Instead, the court directed the applicant mother to bring a motion to strike the father's pleadings, enabling the case to proceed on an uncontested basis and avoid further waste of judicial resources.

This endorsement addresses costs following a motion where the respondent mother successfully obtained an order for the sale of the matrimonial home and exclusive possession.

The court found the applicant father's litigation conduct to be in bad faith, characterized by intentional withholding of information, contradictions in sworn evidence, and bizarre, intimidating communications directed at the mother's lawyer.

Despite the father's self-represented status and claims of inability to pay, the court emphasized that impecuniosity does not shield a litigant from costs for unreasonable or bad faith behavior.

The court fixed costs at $8,000.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, to be paid by the father to the mother.

The applicant father, a civil litigation lawyer with no family law experience, sought to adjourn his family court trial to retain new counsel after his previous lawyer was removed from the record.

The respondent mother opposed a lengthy adjournment, emphasizing the need for timely resolution, particularly concerning the child's proposed relocation to Ireland and the upcoming school year.

The court granted a shorter adjournment than requested by the father, rescheduling the trial to June 2024, making it peremptory on the father, and conditionally delaying the sale of the matrimonial home to align with the new trial date, balancing the father's need for representation with the child's best interests and the mother's right to timely resolution.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home due to imminent bank foreclosure and to strike the applicant father's pleadings for non-compliance with a disclosure order.

The father opposed the sale, asserting the children's best interests and his efforts to manage the property.

The court granted the mother's request for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, dispensing with the father's consent and granting the mother sole authority over the sale process.

The motion to strike pleadings was adjourned.

The court found the property unaffordable for the father, the sale inevitable, and no legitimate family law claims prejudiced by the sale, also noting the father's uncooperative and bizarre conduct.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking permission to take the parties' 15-year-old daughter on a vacation to the Dominican Republic and to dispense with the respondent father's consent.

The father's position was inconsistent; he initially refused, then claimed he had signed consent, and later withdrew consent when costs were sought.

The court granted the mother's request for the trip, finding it to be in the child's best interests and deeming the father's attempt to barter consent inappropriate.

The issue of costs was adjourned, with a conditional order that if the father fails to provide evidence by a specified date that he had previously signed the consent, costs of $2,000 plus HST would be fixed against him.

The court also clarified that affidavits detailing abusive third-party communications, not attributable to a party, are irrelevant for costs determination.

The applicant mother sought to change child support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to change parenting provisions.

The father failed to participate in the proceedings, provide disclosure, or follow through on parenting time.

The court granted the mother's requests for retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 contributions, imputing her income based on a three-year average due to litigation-induced overwork.

The father's cross-motion for parenting changes was dismissed due to lack of material change in circumstances and his non-participation.

Costs were awarded to the mother on a near full indemnity basis, with a portion enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court addressed costs for two resolved motions in a high-conflict family law file, neither of which the presiding judge had adjudicated.

The respondent father had initiated both motions concerning the parties' three children, one for travel and one for exchanges, both resolved by settlement.

The court emphasized the cautious approach required for awarding costs in settled matters, particularly when there has been no adjudication on the merits, making it difficult to apply Rule 24 factors due to insufficient evidentiary foundation regarding the litigation process and success.

Despite the general reluctance to go behind negotiated settlements, the court found an exception for specific issues raised by the respondent father concerning the mother's partner's interference, video/audio recordings, and unsupervised children.

The respondent was successful in obtaining an order addressing these issues.

Consequently, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $1,500.00 in costs for these specific issues, and all other costs claims were dismissed.

The applicant mother sought the return of her child after the respondent father unilaterally withheld the child for over three months.

The father had previously brought an unsuccessful ex parte motion to obtain custody, making misrepresentations to the court and failing to serve the mother.

The parties ultimately settled the parenting issues, with the child returning to the mother's primary care.

This decision addresses the costs of the mother's emergency motion, finding the father's conduct unreasonable and sanctioning it with a costs award to the mother.

This decision addresses costs following a motion concerning the scheduling of parenting time for a child.

The respondent mother was successful on the underlying motion and presumptively entitled to costs, having served an offer that exceeded the result obtained.

However, the applicant father also filed a genuine settlement offer.

The court noted that neither party acted unreasonably or in bad faith, and both sought to maximize time with their son.

Given the parties' respectful conduct, their successful negotiation of other issues, and the close nature of the decision on the remaining issue, the court exercised its discretion to award no costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a motion concerning COVID vaccination for children, which was dismissed in favor of the mother (respondent).

The father (applicant) had sought to vaccinate the children, while the mother successfully argued for deferral based on children's opposition and ongoing concerns.

The mother, largely self-represented, sought costs, while the father argued for nominal costs despite having previously threatened significant costs.

The court found the mother's litigation approach reasonable and the father's introduction of irrelevant issues (mother's political beliefs) unreasonable.

Applying the principles of costs, including indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behavior, the court awarded the mother fixed costs of $1,300.00.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to retain the parties' seven-year-old daughter in Whitehorse, Yukon, after a March break visit, contrary to a prior consent agreement that stipulated the child's return to the respondent father in Hamilton, Ontario.

The mother argued for the child to finish the school year in Whitehorse due to alleged disruptions at the father's residence and perceived advantages for the child.

The respondent father opposed, emphasizing the child's stability and well-being in Hamilton and the disruptive nature of the proposed change.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, reaffirming the principle that the status quo in parenting disputes should not be disrupted without urgent need and upholding the consent agreement.

This motion concerned the scheduling of a "fourth weekend" of parenting time for a five-year-old child, River, in a blended family context.

The applicant father, a long-distance truck driver, proposed a variable schedule based on the last weekend of each month due to his work.

The respondent mother sought a fixed four-week cycle to ensure her son could spend one weekend per month with his half-sister.

The court prioritized the child's best interests, finding that the father's variable schedule would lead to unreasonable gaps in the mother's time with both children and was more cumbersome for planning.

The court granted the mother's request for a fixed four-week cycle.

The applicant mother sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, spousal support, child support, and disclosure, while the respondent father brought a cross-motion for immediate sale of the home.

The court dismissed the father's motion for immediate sale and granted the mother exclusive possession, finding it unfair to dislocate her and the children prematurely given the availability of an early trial.

The court also declined to impute income to either party on an interim basis, citing the complexity of the income analysis and the summary nature of motions.

Temporary child and spousal support were ordered based on the father's stated income, with all support determinations being without prejudice to re-determination at trial.

The Applicant brought a motion to change child and spousal support provisions from a temporary order issued in 2013.

The court found the issues, including a claim for a significant overpayment and income imputation, to be complex and involving credibility disputes, making them unsuitable for a motion and more appropriate for a full trial.

The judge emphasized the need for efficient use of judicial resources and discouraged repetitive motions on issues that should be resolved at trial.

The Applicant was granted leave to withdraw the motion, and the matter was adjourned for a settlement conference to finalize the main application.

The father sought an order for his two children (ages 10 and 12) to receive COVID-19 vaccinations.

The mother opposed, citing well-founded safety concerns and the children's own expressed wishes not to be vaccinated.

The court emphasized the importance of evidence, the best interests of the child, and giving due weight to children's views, especially when supported by credible, albeit contrary, medical information.

The judge criticized the father's attempts to discredit the mother's views based on her political affiliations.

The motion was dismissed, and the mother retained sole decision-making authority regarding the children's COVID vaccinations.

This endorsement addresses procedural complexities in a family law application.

The applicant mother sought determination of parenting, child support, spousal support, and property issues following a 14-year unmarried relationship.

The respondent father had initiated three civil actions related to property and had served an Answer in the family court application but failed to file it, preventing a Case Conference.

The father sought an adjournment, citing work commitments and a "jurisdictional" argument that the family claims should await resolution of the civil property actions.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, finding no logical connection between the civil property actions and the family law claims for support and parenting.