Anthony Macri

The appellant mother appealed an order returning her five-year-old child to Morocco under the Hague Convention.

The application judge found Morocco to be the child's habitual residence and rejected the mother's argument that returning the child would pose a grave risk of harm, despite the respondent father's criminal conviction in Morocco for assaulting the child.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred by not considering the father's assault conviction prospectively and cumulatively with the likely separation of the child from her primary caregiver, the mother, who faced significant legal barriers to returning to Morocco.

The Court held that returning the child to the father's sole care without adequate protective measures constituted a grave risk of harm.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of his five-year-old daughter, who was unilaterally removed from Morocco to Canada by the respondent mother.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Morocco and that the father was exercising his custody rights as a legal guardian under Moroccan law.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the return, arguing exceptions under the Hague Convention, including grave risk of harm, the child's objections, and human rights violations.

The court dismissed the exceptions, finding that Moroccan family law prioritizes the best interests of the child and that the mother's allegations of abuse did not meet the high threshold of grave risk.

The court ordered the child's return to Morocco and awarded costs to the father.

This appeal concerned whether Ontario courts had jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Children’s Law Reform Act to decide parenting issues for a child whose parents had lived in multiple countries.

The majority held that habitual residence under s. 22 turns on where the child resided and was at home at the prescribed time, not on shared parental settled intention.

Applying that approach, the Court found no basis to disturb the motion judge’s conclusion that the child was habitually resident in Ontario when the application commenced.

A dissent would have applied a parental intention approach and found habitual residence in Oman.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This costs award follows the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to provisions of the Family Law Act and Divorce Act.

The court considered the parties' submissions on costs, the novelty and importance of the issues, and the proportionality of the costs sought.

The court declined to order full indemnity costs as requested by the respondent, instead awarding $25,000, finding this amount reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

This decision resolves high-conflict parenting, decision-making, and relocation issues between Aslam Patel and Rabiya Patel.

The court finds that the children’s best interests are served by residing primarily with Rabiya, who is granted sole decision-making authority.

Aslam’s claims of parental alienation are rejected.

The court orders a restricted, reviewable parenting schedule for Aslam, a no-contact order in lieu of a restraining order, and permits Rabiya’s relocation to Pickering.

Extensive evidentiary rulings are made regarding affidavits, exhibits, and recordings.

Raha Mehralian brought a constitutional motion challenging section 29 of the Ontario Family Law Act and the judicial interpretation of section 4 of the federal Divorce Act under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

She argued that the exclusion of individuals subject to valid foreign divorces from seeking spousal support in Ontario constitutes discrimination based on marital status, sex, and religion.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding it to be an impermissible collateral attack on prior court rulings that recognized her Omani divorce and stayed her temporary support order.

The court also noted that the applicant's arguments went beyond her Notice of Constitutional Question and lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated September 25, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,000.

This was a status review application brought by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto concerning two children, E (8) and N (6), who had been in society care since 2021 due to their mother's severe mental health issues.

The Society sought a final custody order granting sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to S.T., the father's partner, with whom the children had been living since the father's departure following domestic violence charges.

The mother sought custody for herself, while the father initially sought custody but later supported S.T.'s custody.

The court granted S.T. sole custody under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, finding it to be in the children's best interests due to the mother's profound and unaddressed mental health challenges and the father's deceitful conduct, family violence, and lack of insight.

The court ordered supervised access for the mother and structured, reduced day access for the father, emphasizing the children's need for stability and protection from conflict.

The moving party, a self-represented lawyer, sought to set aside a registrar's order administratively dismissing his family law appeal for delay and requested an extension of time to perfect it.

The moving party had previously been granted an extension but failed to file the required documents, claiming inadvertence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the explanation for delay unsatisfactory given the moving party's history of non-compliance with court orders and the Rules, and concluding that a further extension would prejudice the responding parties.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a protection application concerning an 11-month-old child, KL, alleging the mother, A.M., was unable to provide adequate care due to severe mental health challenges, non-compliance with treatment, and lack of support.

The father, K.W., was in default.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's inconsistent medication adherence, poor insight into her mental health, and inability to provide a stable environment.

The court ordered the child to remain in the care and custody of a kith caregiver, H.O., for six months, subject to society supervision.

The mother's access was reduced to supervised bi-weekly visits, and the court provided a roadmap for the mother to work towards reunification.

This appeal involved cross-appeals concerning the recognition of an Omani foreign divorce and the Superior Court's jurisdiction over parenting issues for the parties' child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the recognition of the Omani divorce, finding that the applicant had attorned to the Omani court's jurisdiction by voluntarily participating in the proceedings on the merits.

The court also upheld the Superior Court's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction over parenting matters, determining that the child was habitually resident in Ontario at the relevant time, and that the Omani divorce order did not oust this jurisdiction.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The respondent husband brought a motion seeking an order to return their 5-month-old son to Oman, claiming it was the child's habitual residence.

The applicant wife opposed, asserting that Ontario was the child's habitual residence and thus the Ontario court had jurisdiction over parenting issues.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario under s. 22(1)(a) of the Children's Law Reform Act, and alternatively, that jurisdiction was established under s. 22(1)(b).

The respondent's motion was dismissed, and the applicant's cross-motion for jurisdiction was granted.

The respondent brought a motion seeking the sale of the matrimonial home under the Partition Act.

The applicant opposed, arguing the motion was premature and prejudicial due to outstanding financial disclosure and unresolved equalization issues under the Family Law Act.

The court, while acknowledging the prima facie right to partition, emphasized the nuanced approach required in family law cases.

It found that ordering a sale before full financial and valuation information was available would risk prejudice to the applicant's equalization claim and cause undue hardship.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the respondent to re-bring it after a scheduled settlement conference and expert reports are available.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a prior motion where the respondent successfully had an Omani divorce recognized.

The respondent sought over $36,000 in costs, including expert disbursements.

The court rejected the respondent's claim of beating an offer to settle, finding the offer non-severable.

The court also expressed concerns about the utility and reasonableness of expert evidence.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 all-inclusive, payable by the applicant, but payment was deferred until the outcome of the costs of the upcoming trial, allowing for potential set-off.

The responding party commenced family law proceedings in Ontario.

The moving party subsequently obtained a religious divorce in Oman, which was later formalized and upheld by the Omani courts.

The responding party participated in the Omani proceedings, contesting jurisdiction and the merits of the divorce, and seeking custody.

The moving party brought a motion in Ontario to recognize the Omani divorce.

The court granted the motion, finding that the responding party had voluntarily attorned to the jurisdiction of the Omani courts by participating on the merits and seeking substantive relief, precluding her from challenging the foreign court's jurisdiction in Ontario.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 22, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs fixed at $3,000, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court ordered the appeal to be heard on an expedited basis and scheduled a case management teleconference to set a schedule.

The maternal grandparents sought contact and access to medical records for their five-year-old granddaughter, who suffered a catastrophic brain injury after her mother (the applicant) attempted to murder her via an insulin overdose.

The child resides with her father, who opposed the grandparents' contact due to extreme conflict, their interference with medical care, and the grandmother's delusional accusations against him and the medical team.

The court denied the grandmother contact and access to medical records, finding her conduct detrimental to the child's well-being, and granted a restraining order against her.

The grandfather was granted limited, supervised contact of one hour per month, as he demonstrated a willingness to cooperate and follow the caregivers' directions.

Following a focused hearing on a motion to change spousal support, the applicant sought $30,000 in costs.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success and her limited financial means.

The court found that while success was divided, the applicant was the more successful party and had made reasonable offers to settle.

The respondent's persistence in seeking compensatory support was deemed unreasonable.

Balancing the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the respondent's limited ability to pay, the court ordered the respondent to pay $18,000 in costs to the applicant.

On a review of a longstanding consent spousal support order arising from a long marriage, the court treated the matter as equivalent to an initial determination of entitlement, quantum, and duration because the review clause was not tightly delimited.

The court held the responding spouse remained entitled to support on a non-compensatory, needs-based basis, but rejected any meaningful compensatory basis and declined to permit sharing in the moving party's post-separation income increases after finding his later earnings arose from a substantially different post-separation career path.

The court found the responding spouse had made excessive business deductions and was intentionally underemployed, imputing additional income, but declined to treat financial assistance from her sister as income.

Support was reduced, de-indexed, fixed at $2,250 monthly commencing September 1, 2022, and terminated effective December 31, 2024.

This is a costs decision following several family law motions.

The applicant sought costs for an urgent motion regarding the respondent's undisclosed mortgage advance, as well as for the respondent's dismissed motion for temporary support and the applicant's successful motion for a section 30 assessment.

The court found the respondent's behaviour regarding the mortgage advance to be unreasonable, bordering on bad faith, and awarded the applicant substantial indemnity costs for the urgent motion.

The court also awarded the applicant costs for the support and assessment motions, noting her success and a favourable offer to settle.

The respondent was ordered to pay total costs of $21,308.65.