Alison Pengelley

The applicant sought costs following a motion where success was divided.

The applicant argued the respondent's failure to disclose constituted bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, which would mandate full recovery costs.

The court found the respondent's conduct was careless and unreasonable, but lacked the malicious intent required for a finding of bad faith.

Due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct, the applicant was awarded costs.

However, the court found the applicant's claimed costs of over $24,000 were disproportionate to the value of the property in issue.

The court awarded the applicant $7,500 in costs on a partial recovery basis.

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking to join the respondent husband's father as a party, requesting interim spousal support, and seeking extensive financial disclosure regarding the husband's ATV rental business which had been transferred to his mother.

The court dismissed the motion to join the father due to lack of evidence connecting him to the impugned transactions and his health issues.

The claim for interim spousal support was dismissed without prejudice, as the husband's income had significantly reduced after relocating the business, and his efforts to re-establish it were deemed reasonable, precluding the imputation of income.

However, the court ordered extensive financial disclosure from both the husband and his mother to clarify the business's income and the nature of the transfer.

Costs decision following a family law proceeding concerning recognition in Ontario of an Alberta parenting order requiring the return of a child and equal parenting time.

The court had previously declined to recognize the Alberta order.

Although the respondent was substantially successful and had made a settlement offer similar to the court’s ultimate decision, the court considered the conduct of both parties.

The applicant’s litigation conduct was criticized, but the respondent’s unilateral relocation with the child from Alberta to Ontario contributed to the dispute.

Balancing these considerations under Family Law Rule 24 and the Courts of Justice Act, the court departed from the presumption that the successful party receive costs.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of an Alberta custody and parenting order requiring the return of the parties’ child to Alberta and providing for shared parenting time.

The court considered s. 41 of the Children’s Law Reform Act governing recognition of extra‑provincial custody orders and whether the respondent had received reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard in the Alberta proceeding.

The court found the respondent had not been given reasonable notice and therefore had no meaningful opportunity to participate.

The court also concluded that the Alberta order appeared to have been made without sufficient consideration of the child’s best interests and was therefore contrary to Ontario public policy.

The court refused recognition of the Alberta order and held that Ontario had jurisdiction to determine custody and access due to the child’s habitual residence in Ontario resulting from undue delay in enforcement proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion during a family law trial to exclude the respondent's expert evidence regarding domestic violence.

The applicant argued the report was served late, was not relevant to the jurisdictional issue, and was unreliable.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and found the evidence relevant to the overriding consideration of the child's best interests and the potential for serious harm.

The court held that the late service was not fatal under the Family Law Rules and that reliability concerns should be addressed through cross-examination.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary child support for three adult children attending post-secondary education, a preservation order, and a pension valuation.

The respondent brought a counter-motion to dismiss the applicant's equalization claim on the basis that the six-year limitation period had expired.

The court found that the adult children, despite delayed educational paths due to learning disabilities and family issues, remained children of the marriage and ordered temporary section 7 support.

The court dismissed the respondent's counter-motion, extending the limitation period for equalization because the applicant's delay was in good faith and the respondent suffered no substantial prejudice.

A preservation order over the respondent's RRSPs was granted due to a strong risk of asset depletion, but the request for a pension valuation was dismissed.

Following cross-motions in a family law matter concerning interim access, custody, and child support, the court delivered an oral ruling granting the father interim access while declining to determine custody and requiring financial disclosure for child support.

The court later considered written submissions on costs.

Applying the factors under Family Law Rule 24, including the time spent, the complexity of the issues, and the mixed results achieved by the parties, the court determined that neither party achieved clear success.

As a result, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the motions.

The respondent was substantially successful on motions to bifurcate the trial and compel financial disclosure from the applicant, who was seeking to set aside their separation agreement.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The respondent sought $12,290.00 on a substantial indemnity scale, while the applicant argued for $3,000.00.

The court found that the applicant's conduct in challenging the agreement while concealing his current financial circumstances warranted costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $8,407.20, inclusive of HST, after adjusting the hours claimed for preparation to ensure proportionality and reasonableness.