Alla Kikinova

This is a costs endorsement following a five-day family law trial.

The applicant sought costs after being largely successful on the primary issues, including the denial of the respondent's relocation request and the establishment of an equal parenting schedule, which aligned with the applicant's offer to settle.

The respondent argued for no costs, citing good faith in her relocation request, her consent to a week-about schedule if the child remained local, and her limited financial means.

The court found the applicant to be the successful party, noting the respondent's unreasonable position on parenting time and her failure to engage in settlement discussions or provide a bill of costs as required by the Family Law Rules.

While acknowledging the respondent's financial constraints, the court balanced this with the applicant's settlement efforts and the respondent's conduct.

The court awarded the applicant $8,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable in installments.

The Superior Court of Justice heard a family law trial concerning parenting, child support, spousal support, and a tort claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court granted a divorce, established joint decision-making responsibility with the mother having final authority, and set a parenting schedule with the mother as primary caregiver during the school year and week-about time during summer.

Child support was ordered based on the father's income.

The mother was found entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and needs bases, but no amount was ordered due to the father's inability to pay after child support.

The mother's claim for damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering was dismissed as the father's conduct, while insensitive, was not found to be flagrant, outrageous, or calculated to cause harm.

This family law trial addressed the respondent mother's request to relocate an 11-year-old child from L[...] to M[...], Ontario, and her associated requests for sole decision-making and primary residence.

The applicant father opposed the relocation, seeking to maintain the existing equal shared parenting schedule and joint decision-making.

The court found that the respondent mother failed to prove that the relocation was in the child's best interests, citing concerns about the child's stability, educational needs, and the unreasonableness of the proposed parenting plan given the parties' limited financial means.

The court also found no compelling reason to alter the joint decision-making regime.

Consequently, the existing shared parenting schedule and joint decision-making were ordered to continue, with the applicant paying set-off child support.

This family law trial addressed the equalization of net family property and child support following the parties' separation.

Key issues included determining the beneficial ownership and valuation of assets, particularly a Saudi company (Joud Metals Est.) registered in the husband's sister's name, and the imputation of income to the husband for child support purposes.

The court found the husband to be the beneficial owner of the Saudi company's assets and imputed income to him due to intentional under-employment, leading to an equalization payment and child support arrears in favour of the wife.

The Children's Aid Society sought extended society care for two children against their father and mothers.

The mothers consented to extended society care.

The father opposed, seeking custody.

The court found both children in need of protection due to the father's pedohebephilia diagnosis, untreated impulsivity, chaotic lifestyle, substance use, and history of non-compliance with orders.

The court dismissed the father's plan of care, finding it unrealistic, and ordered extended society care for both children, with silent access for parents but continued inter-sibling access.

The applicant sought costs following successful motions, including an award of interim custody, where the respondent's conduct was described as "egregious." The respondent failed to file costs submissions.

The court found the applicant's requested costs of $2,080 to be modest and reasonable, considering the applicant's success and the respondent's behaviour.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the fixed costs.

The father moved for temporary care and custody of the children, subject to Society supervision, which was opposed by the Society and the mother.

The mother also moved for expanded interim access, unopposed by the Society.

The court found that despite the father's progress, significant concerns regarding his substance use, lack of corroborating medical reports, and unstable housing remained.

Applying the test from Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., the court determined that the children would likely suffer harm if returned to the father's care and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order at that time.

Consequently, the father's motion for temporary care and custody was dismissed, and the children remained in the Society's temporary care.

However, the court granted expanded interim access to both the father (including overnight access with conditions) and the mother, deeming it in the children's best interests.

The Society was also ordered to expedite a kinship assessment.

The applicant and respondent both brought motions for interim custody and access.

The court found urgency due to the respondent's harassing behaviour, including criminal harassment charges and homophobic remarks directed at the applicant and her new partner, which involved the child.

The court dismissed the respondent's request to maintain the status quo, finding compelling reasons to alter it due to his conduct.

The court awarded interim custody to the applicant and established a parenting schedule where the child is with the applicant for three days and the respondent for four days, with all decision-making authority vested in the applicant.

The respondent was encouraged to seek counselling.

The applicant mother sought supervised access for the respondent father at Merrymount and a restraining order.

The respondent father sought interim unsupervised access.

The court granted the mother's request for supervised access at Merrymount, finding it in the child's best interests, but allowed the father liberty to bring a future motion to vary the order to allow for supervision by his mother or other family members, or for unsupervised access after nine visits.

The court also noted a violation of Rule 14(20), para. 3 by the applicant's second affidavit but considered the relevant evidence.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim sole custody of the parties' two children and supervised access for the respondent father.

The father had previously been granted primary residence of the older child on a without prejudice basis, but circumstances had materially changed, including the father facing new criminal charges and the release of a highly concerning Report of the Children's Lawyer.

The court found it was in the best interests of the children to reside with the mother in her sole custody, and ordered supervised access for the father pending his completion of counselling and a drug test.