Amal Sidrah Nayyar

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Derstine J. dated April 9, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay the responding party $5,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The court delivered a costs endorsement following motions to change parenting time and child support, and an enforcement motion.

The father was largely successful in the underlying motions.

The court considered the principles of costs, including success, offers to settle, and party conduct, as well as the mother's limited ability to pay.

The father's offer to settle did not meet the strict requirements for enhanced costs due to vagueness and predetermination of costs.

The mother was found to have acted unreasonably by not making an offer and failing to provide full disclosure.

The court ordered the mother to pay the father fixed costs of $4,800, payable monthly, with a portion enforceable as support.

This trial addressed outstanding issues of retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses, including RESP contributions, following a partial settlement.

The court imputed income to both the Father (Applicant) and the Mother (Respondent) based on their earning capacities and health circumstances.

The Father was found to be intentionally underemployed, and the Mother's unemployment was attributed to health issues, though income was still imputed due to insufficient evidence of complete inability to work or efforts to obtain disability benefits.

The court calculated child support arrears for both parties, resulting in a net payment from the Father to the Mother.

The Father's claim for childcare expenses was dismissed for lack of evidence, while RESP contributions were ordered to be shared equally going forward, with the Father paying arrears to equalize past contributions.

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.

The applicant mother brought a motion for contempt against the respondent father for failing to return their two sons to Toronto by a specified date, in contravention of a prior court order.

The respondent filed a cross-motion seeking to vary the order, citing expired passports as the reason for non-compliance.

The court, without deciding the contempt or variation motions, issued an immediate order directing the respondent to attend the Canadian Embassy in Tunisia to obtain emergency travel documents for the children and to provide proof of compliance to the applicant.

Both the contempt motion and the cross-motion were adjourned to a later date.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to set aside ex parte interim orders, obtain joint custody, shared parenting, and permit the children to remain in Tunisia, citing cultural values and perceived lower COVID-19 risks.

The applicant mother had previously obtained ex parte orders for interim sole custody and the return of the children to Toronto, following the respondent's refusal to return them after a vacation.

The court found the children's habitual residence to be Toronto, as conceded by the respondent, and dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no justification to set aside or vary the prior orders.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to Toronto and scheduled a case conference.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial on child and spousal support obligations.

The respondent mother was the successful party, having obtained an order more favourable than her settlement offer dated May 25, 2017.

The applicant father acted in person and engaged in unreasonable conduct, including late and incomplete financial disclosure, failure to timely make support payments, and lack of credibility regarding income reporting.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $500 per month commencing September 1, 2017.

A trial concerning child support and spousal support obligations following the separation of the parties.

The father sought access to the children and the mother sought custody, child support, and spousal support.

The court imputed income to the father based on evidence of undeclared cash income, improper expense deductions, and personal expenses written off through his business.

The court found the father intentionally under-employed and awarded child support based on an imputed income of $59,677 for 2016 and $56,649 for 2017, spousal support of $650 per month on an indefinite basis, and ordered the father to pay 75% of section 7 expenses.

Support was made retroactive to January 1, 2016.