A. Pazaratz

Following a motion where the applicant mother was largely successful in obtaining child support and permission to relocate, she sought costs of $5,000.

The respondent father did not file responding costs submissions.

The court noted divided success, as the mother initially sought support for six children but reduced it to three due to insufficient evidence.

The father's failure to provide financial disclosure was an aggravating factor.

The court awarded the mother $3,500 in costs, directing that 90% ($3,150) be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as it related to the support issue.

Following the dismissal of the paternal grandmother's motion to consolidate her access application with the mother's motion to change the father's access, the mother sought costs.

The paternal grandmother argued against costs, citing her limited ability to pay and suggesting the mother's receipt of Legal Aid should reduce the award.

The court rejected these arguments, noting that Legal Aid is irrelevant to costs and that ability to pay does not immunize a party from costs for unnecessary procedural steps.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $4,700.

Following a successful disclosure motion in a family law proceeding, the applicant sought full recovery costs of over $22,000, alleging bad faith and unreasonable behaviour by the respondent.

The respondent sought to deprive the applicant of costs and claimed her own costs.

The court found the applicant was primarily successful but that full recovery was not warranted, emphasizing that costs must remain reasonable and proportional.

The court awarded the applicant $12,000 in costs and declined to order enforcement through the Family Responsibility Office.

The respondent brought a motion seeking full authority to conduct the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home, alleging the applicant was unreasonably stalling the process.

The court declined to grant the respondent sole control over the sale, noting a lack of independent professional evidence regarding the appropriate listing price.

However, recognizing the high-conflict nature of the case, the court imposed strict terms and timelines for obtaining appraisals, listing the property, and responding to offers.

The court also permitted the respondent to proceed with an access motion separately from the support issues.

No costs were awarded due to divided success and the unreasonable behaviour of both parties.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for a temporary parenting order prior to a Case Conference.

The parties, who separated in 2019, had competing proposals for parenting time that differed by only one overnight every two weeks.

The court emphasized the need to focus on the children's best interests rather than parental conflict, and ordered a temporary 2-2-3 rotating schedule providing equal time to both parents.

The mother, who had custody of the parties' seven-year-old child, died suddenly of a drug overdose.

The father brought an emergency motion for temporary custody.

The maternal aunt, who had been secretly caring for the child for the past year due to the mother's substance abuse issues, sought to be added as a party and requested custody based on the status quo.

The court found that the aunt and the mother had actively concealed the mother's struggles and the child's living arrangements from the father and the court.

The court granted temporary custody to the father, concluding that the aunt's deceptive conduct demonstrated a profound lack of insight and an inability to foster the child's relationship with her father.

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to consolidate her application for access with the mother's motion to change the father's access.

The mother opposed the consolidation, arguing her motion was urgent and could be dealt with quickly, whereas the grandmother's application would require a lengthy trial.

The court dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding that the two proceedings were fundamentally different and that consolidating them would prejudice the mother by delaying the determination of urgent issues regarding the child's safety.

Following a motion where the applicant father was overwhelmingly successful in obtaining primary residence of the children, he sought full recovery costs of $9,930.

The respondent mother argued she could only afford $1,500 due to her limited financial circumstances and receipt of Legal Aid.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable but not rising to the level of bad faith required for full recovery.

The court held that while ability to pay is a factor, it cannot shield a litigant from the consequences of unreasonable behaviour, nor is the receipt of Legal Aid a relevant factor in determining costs.

Costs were fixed at $6,000.

The moving party father brought an urgent motion seeking the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, requesting it proceed as an uncontested basket motion because the responding party mother had not filed responding materials.

The court noted the high-conflict nature of the file and the profound relief sought.

The court declined to proceed on an unopposed basis, emphasizing that professional courtesy and communication between counsel are necessary to avoid unnecessary subsequent motions to set aside orders, especially given evolving COVID-19 protocols.

The applicant maternal grandmother brought an urgent motion for sole custody of her 15-year-old grandson, who had been living with her since the end of March 2020.

The grandmother alleged the respondent mother had an unstable lifestyle.

The triage judge determined the matter was not urgent, noting procedural deficiencies including failure to serve the biological father and lack of clarity on whether a previous joint custody order existed.

The court found the 15-year-old child was currently staying with the grandmother by his own choice and was not in imminent danger of being removed.

The urgent motion was dismissed and a case conference was directed to be scheduled.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking the immediate return of her three children after the respondent father refused to return them following a weekend visit, citing an incident involving the mother's partner.

The court reviewed the mother's materials as a triage judge during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The court found the custody and access issues to be potentially urgent and set a timetable for the father to file responding materials and for the Children's Aid Society to provide an update before a formal hearing.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion regarding parenting time during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The triage judge reviewed the father's materials and found that he had unilaterally retained the three-year-old child after a period of access due to frustration over timesharing disputes.

The court declined to hear the motion, noting strong disapproval of self-help in parenting disputes, and recommended the immediate return of the child to the respondent mother.

The applicant father sought an immediate custody order for his four-year-old son following the death of the mother.

The matter was heard as a triage decision during the COVID-19 suspension of regular court operations.

The court noted evidentiary deficiencies in the father's materials, including an unsworn application and an improperly completed s. 35.1 affidavit.

However, recognizing the father's need for authority to make medical and administrative decisions for the child, the court granted a temporary custody order and dispensed with service, adjourning the application for the filing of updated and proper evidence.

The mother brought an urgent motion to suspend the father's in-person access to their nine-year-old son due to concerns about COVID-19 and social distancing.

The Triage Judge denied authorization for the matter to proceed as an urgent hearing.

The court established that existing parenting orders should generally continue during the pandemic, subject to necessary modifications for safety protocols, and that a blanket policy of suspending access is not in a child's best interests.

The mother failed to provide specific evidence that the father would not adhere to appropriate COVID-19 protocols.

The applicant father and paternal grandmother brought a motion to change a 2012 final order that had granted custody to the respondent mother.

The children had been removed from the mother's care by child protection authorities in 2013 and placed with the applicants, where they thrived for over six years.

The mother, who was self-represented, repeatedly delayed the 41-day trial over 16 months by calling in sick without adequate medical corroboration and failing to attend court.

The court found a material change in circumstances, granted sole custody to the father, and limited the mother's access to one weekend per month due to her inconsistent visits.

The court also terminated the father's spousal support obligations and rescinded all arrears, noting the mother's failure to provide financial disclosure or participate meaningfully in the trial.

The mother in a child protection proceeding brought a motion requesting the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer for her 7-year-old child.

The Society opposed the motion, noting it was seeking Extended Society Care with no access and a summary judgment motion was already scheduled.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the child was under the age of 8 and developmentally immature, and the mother failed to provide evidence that the appointment would assist the court or the child in any specific way.

The 93-year-old applicant is pursuing financial claims against his deceased wife's estate.

The court expressed serious concerns regarding the lack of priority and cumulative delays in the proceedings, including the applicant's counsel unilaterally scheduling a settlement conference before the file was ready, and the respondent estate commencing a separate action in another branch of the court.

The matter was adjourned to be spoken to, with the court directing counsel to outline practical steps to expedite the resolution of the case.

The respondent father brought a motion to find the applicant mother in contempt of a joint custody order and to force their 11-year-old daughter to return to her previous school.

The father alleged the mother unilaterally transferred the child to a new school for a sports program without his consent.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the father was aware of the proposed change and did not object until the school year began.

The court also dismissed the request to change the child's school, noting the child's excitement and happiness at the new school and the lack of contradictory evidence from the father.

The respondent requested a five-month adjournment of the trial due to medical issues, despite previously agreeing to a peremptory trial date.

The applicant opposed the adjournment but requested the release of funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home if the trial was delayed.

The court removed the trial from the current sittings and adjourned the matter to be spoken to, noting the unfairness of the repeated delays to the applicant.

To balance the prejudice, the court ordered the immediate release of the applicant's 50% share of the home proceeds, plus a $15,000 advance from the respondent's share to account for costs thrown away and ongoing needs.

The applicant mother brought a motion to set aside a temporary custody order made in her absence.

The order granted the respondent father temporary custody and primary residence of their two minor children.

The applicant argued that her failure to respond to the original motion was due to her counsel being on vacation and a subsequent scheduling miscommunication.

The court applied the test under Rule 25(19) and the five factors for setting aside a default order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and failed to demonstrate that setting aside the order would be in the children's best interests.