Ashley Iyathurai

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' child to Cyprus.

The respondent mother had travelled to Canada with the child for what the father claimed was a one-month vacation, but she retained the child in Canada, alleging the father consented to a permanent move and that returning the child would expose him to a grave risk of harm due to domestic violence.

The court found the child's habitual residence was Cyprus and that the father did not consent to a permanent relocation.

The court rejected the mother's allegations of domestic violence, finding her evidence lacked credibility and detail, and concluded the Article 13(b) grave risk exception was not met.

The child was ordered returned to Cyprus.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding the matrimonial home, which was solely owned by the applicant and facing foreclosure due to unpaid mortgage arrears.

The respondent sought exclusive possession and a preservation order, while the applicant sought an order for the sale of the home.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for exclusive possession, finding no compelling evidence that the children's best interests required them to stay or that suitable alternative accommodation was unavailable.

The court ordered the sale of the home, directing that the respondent receive an advance on equalization of up to $400,000 from the proceeds, and issued a limited preservation order preventing the applicant from further encumbering his rental property.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion decided on April 23, 2020.

The Respondent was substantially successful on the underlying motion.

Considering the Applicant's limited means, the court awarded costs to the Respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $2600, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and applicable taxes.

The Applicant is to pay this sum to Legal Aid Ontario within 90 days, with the order explicitly stating it is not to be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicant sought an urgent order for the sale of the matrimonial home and mortgage deferral due to dire financial circumstances exacerbated by the pandemic, and for the respondent's signature on sale documents to be dispensed with.

The court granted the applicant's motion under the Partition Act, finding the motion urgent and the respondent's proposed alternatives unrealistic, despite the parties no longer being "spouses" under the Family Law Act.

The applicant moved to vary existing interim orders to grant her primary residence of the children, alleging the respondent failed to comply with COVID-19 protocols.

The court found that the applicant did not prove a material change in circumstances on a balance of probabilities, as the evidence of non-compliance was largely hearsay.

The motion to vary was dismissed.

However, the court issued additional orders requiring both parties to comply with all applicable governmental directives and recommendations relating to COVID-19, specifically prohibiting children from visiting other households and restricting who could accompany the respondent during child exchanges.