Alla Koren

The applicant, Miguel Angel Delgado Sanchez, brought an application seeking a declaration of interest in the former matrimonial home, nullification of a 2003 title transfer to the respondent, Nora Belen Tello-Sotomarino, and other relief, alleging concealed fraud.

The respondent brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss these claims as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the Real Property Limitation Act.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the applicant's inconsistent evidence regarding the alleged fraud and his admission that his signature on the transfer documents was genuine.

The court concluded there was no factual foundation for concealed fraud to trigger an extension of the limitation period.

The applicant's claims were dismissed as statute-barred.

The respondent sought an urgent order for the child to relocate to Vancouver, asserting the applicant's consent to relocation and her primary caregiving role.

The applicant cross-moved for the child to reside primarily in Ontario.

The court found Ontario had jurisdiction as the child was habitually resident there.

The court determined that the applicant had consented to the child's relocation to Vancouver, evidenced by a signed travel consent and purchased airline tickets.

Applying the onus on the applicant to establish that the relocation was not in the child's best interests, the court found it was in the child's best interest to relocate with the respondent to Vancouver on an interim basis, given the respondent was the primary caregiver and had made extensive arrangements in Vancouver.

This decision addresses a costs dispute in a high-conflict family law matter following the settlement of parenting issues.

The Applicant sought substantial costs, alleging the Respondent's late acceptance of an offer to settle constituted bad faith.

The court found the offer was validly accepted and did not trigger costs consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court declined to make findings of bad faith or unreasonable behaviour based solely on costs submissions, noting the Applicant's subsequent actions were needless.

Ultimately, the court made no order as to costs, balancing the parties' conduct and the purpose of offers to settle.

The father sought full recovery of costs in the amount of $17,345.50 following his successful motion to relocate with the child from Oakville to Ancaster.

The mother argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the father was presumptively entitled to costs but only on a partial indemnity scale, as the mother's opposition was not in bad faith and she raised legitimate arguments.

Despite the father beating his offer to settle, the court declined to strictly apply Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules given the nature of the parenting dispute.

The father was awarded $9,000 in costs.

The applicant father brought an urgent interim motion to relocate with the parties' six-year-old child from Oakville to Ancaster.

The respondent mother, who had supervised parenting time, opposed the move, arguing it would disrupt the child's special needs services.

The court granted the motion, finding that the father had a comprehensive plan to maintain the child's medical and educational supports, and that the move was in the child's best interests.

Following a successful motion for exclusive possession of a property, the applicant sought costs.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful, had made reasonable offers to settle that matched the final order, and behaved reasonably throughout.

Conversely, the respondent behaved unreasonably and failed to make any offers to settle.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $32,650.00.

The moving parties (two fathers) sought full indemnity costs of approximately $75,000 following a successful motion that changed the respondent mother's parenting time to supervised access.

The court found that while the fathers were successful and presumptively entitled to costs, their claim was unreasonable and disproportionate for a one-hour motion.

The court also criticized the unnecessary and ill-conceived contempt motion brought by one of the fathers, which unnecessarily complicated the proceedings.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000, apportioned equally between the fathers.

The applicant sought an order for exclusive possession of a property solely owned by him, where his former common-law partner and their children resided.

A previous order allowed the respondent to remain if she assumed responsibility for a collateral mortgage and brought a spousal support motion.

The respondent failed to meet these conditions and sought to set them aside under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to set aside the conditions, finding no fraud or mistake, and granted the applicant exclusive possession, ordering the respondent to vacate within 60 days.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following two successful motions for child support brought by fathers N. and R. against mother A. The fathers sought full indemnity costs, while the mother argued for no costs due to alleged divided success and her own offers to settle.

The court rejected both extreme positions, finding no merit in full indemnity or no costs.

Applying the presumption that successful parties are entitled to some costs, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to each father, reducing their requested amounts due to some overlap between their original motions.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion to change brought by the father concerning access to the child.

The motion was stayed because the father failed to comply with a prior consent order requiring a proper psychiatric assessment.

The mother, who was the responding party to the motion to change, sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court awarded the mother $5,000 in costs, finding her offer to settle, which proposed the father withdraw his motion and obtain a proper assessment, was reasonable and closely aligned with the court's eventual decision to stay the motion.

The court emphasized the importance of proportionality, reasonableness, and the role of costs in encouraging settlement and discouraging unreasonable litigation conduct.

The respondent mother brought a 14B motion to determine who should conduct her court-ordered psychiatric assessment and what documents should be provided to the assessor.

The mother, applicant father, and respondent father each proposed a different psychiatrist.

The court selected the respondent father's proposed assessor, finding him to be the most qualified for adult psychiatric diagnoses.

The court also ordered that all prior orders, including those made without prejudice, be provided to the assessor.

Two fathers brought separate motions seeking temporary child support and section 7 expenses from the mother for their respective children.

The mother admitted her obligation to pay but disputed the amounts, the retroactive date, and claimed undue hardship.

The court ordered the mother to pay Table child support based on an agreed income of $117,360 and 50% of section 7 expenses for both children, retroactive to September 1, 2020, when the demands were first made.

The court dismissed the mother's undue hardship claim at this stage, encouraging her to reduce her supervised access costs first.

The father brought an urgent motion to enforce a child access order, which was subsequently dismissed as moot because access had resumed.

The motion then proceeded on the issue of costs.

The court found that neither party acted entirely reasonably in their communications during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to the escalation of the dispute.

No costs were awarded to either party, and the court encouraged the parties to engage a third-party professional for communication and co-operation.

The applicant brought an urgent motion to have the names of the parties and their daughter identified only by their initials in court endorsements and orders, citing the nature of the applicant's occupation.

The respondent consented to the request.

The court found the request reasonable and granted the order, with no costs awarded.

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary child and spousal support, interim disbursements, preservation orders, and to add the husband's father and his new company as parties.

The wife alleged the husband was hiding assets and intentionally bankrupting their previously successful business to avoid support obligations.

The husband claimed he and his business were insolvent.

The court found the husband's financial evidence suspicious and his conduct concerning, noting he paid creditors instead of supporting his family.

The court ordered $7,500 monthly in unallocated support, granted leave to add the father and his company as parties, and ordered various financial disclosures and preservation measures, but declined to impute an $800,000 income or order interim disbursements at this stage.

The Applicant sought costs arising from her unsuccessful motion to strike the Respondent's Answer due to his failure to pay a previous costs order.

The Respondent, who was self-represented, also sought costs for successfully defending the motion.

The court found that both parties acted unreasonably in precipitating and conducting the motion, with the Applicant claiming excessive costs and the Respondent failing to properly substantiate his claim.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs payable for the motion, disentitling both parties to the costs they might otherwise have received.

The Applicant sought a Mareva injunction and a non-depletion order against her deceased husband (Respondent) and an added party (his extramarital partner) to freeze assets allegedly transferred to frustrate an equalization claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that no order could be issued against the deceased respondent due to the stay of proceedings, and that the Mareva injunction failed because the added party had no assets in Ontario, the assets were already dissipated outside the jurisdiction, and the applicant failed to provide an undertaking as to damages.

The non-depletion order under the Family Law Act also failed as it cannot enjoin property of strangers to the family law action and the applicant did not establish a trust.

The respondent sought costs of over $16,000 for several case conferences and a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant, who was later represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, had failed to attend conferences and her former counsel caused undue delay.

The court awarded the respondent $4,000 in costs payable by the applicant for the conferences and motion preparation, and $1,500 payable personally by the applicant's former counsel for unnecessary attendances caused by her delay and unresponsiveness.