Amal Nayyar

The father brought a motion to hold the mother in contempt of a parenting order after he was criminally charged and his bail conditions prevented him from communicating with her.

The motion was resolved when the father's bail conditions were varied to allow for child exchanges.

The court found that the father brought the contempt motion prematurely, as the mother was cooperative in facilitating the bail variation.

The court awarded costs of $5,000 to the mother.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the parties had been separated for over one year to proceed with a simple divorce application.

The respondent opposed, arguing the motion was premature and that an Ontario divorce would prejudice her claims in India.

The court found the parties had been separated for over one year, noted the respondent had withdrawn her annulment claim, and held there was no evidence of actual prejudice to justify withholding the divorce.

Following an eight-day family law trial where the respondent father was successful on the contested issues of decision-making and parenting time, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent sought over $200,000 in costs, relying on multiple settlement offers that were better than the trial outcome.

The applicant mother argued against a costs award, citing divided success and her inability to pay due to financial hardship and reliance on legal aid.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and fixed his reasonable costs at $150,000.

However, recognizing the applicant's inability to pay, the court applied a 50% discount, ordering the applicant to pay $75,000 in costs.

The applicant mother sought to change an existing shared parenting and joint decision-making regime, requesting primary residence and sole decision-making authority.

The mother argued that the father had historically been financially oppressive and that the children, particularly the 13-year-old, had expressed a preference to live primarily with her.

The court relied heavily on an Office of the Children's Lawyer report which recommended maintaining the status quo.

The court found that the children's hearsay statements via text message were not sufficiently reliable to establish a change in preference.

The court dismissed the mother's claims for primary residence and sole decision-making, maintaining the week-about shared parenting schedule and joint decision-making, while ordering counselling for the eldest child to ascertain her views and preferences going forward.

The father brought a motion seeking 23 declaratory orders regarding disputed factual issues to undermine previous interim custody orders requiring the return of the children from Tunisia to Canada.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it inappropriate to make detailed findings of fact on a motion when not relevant to a substantive matter before the court.

The court noted the father had returned the children and suggested the Tunisian proceedings be permanently stayed to restore the pre-litigation status quo.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the mother.