Carole Curtis

This decision concerns the costs of a two-day family law trial.

The applicant mother sought costs of $11,769.90, while the respondent father disputed this and sought $13,392.

The court found the mother to be the successful party, as many issues were resolved in her favour or aligned with her initial offers.

The father's conduct, including attempting to raise new claims at trial and making a late, unreasonable offer, was deemed unreasonable.

The court emphasized that costs serve to indemnify successful litigants, encourage settlement, and discourage inappropriate behaviour.

The father was ordered to pay the mother $11,769.90 in costs.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs awarded to the respondent after the applicant's spousal support application was dismissed due to abandonment and under Rule 1(8)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant, an unrepresented litigant, pursued a claim of questionable merit, failed to comply with court orders, and ultimately ceased participation, forcing the respondent to incur significant legal expenses for trial preparation.

The court found the applicant's conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, noting her refusal to accept reasonable settlement offers, including one that would have discharged a $65,000 debt and waived all costs.

Applying principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and sanctioning inappropriate behaviour, the court awarded the respondent full recovery costs.

Both parents brought motions regarding their two children.

The mother sought a restraining order and no parenting time for the father, citing his erratic and frightening behaviour and mental health concerns.

The father sought unsupervised parenting time.

The court found the father's recent behaviour to be out of control and frightening to the mother and children.

The court granted sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the mother, ordered no parenting time for the father, and imposed a restraining order.

The father was also restricted from bringing future motions to change the order without leave and a psychiatrist's letter.

This four-day trial concerned a child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto regarding the child A.E. The Society sought a protection finding and an order placing the child in the care of the paternal grandparents under a supervision order, with access to the father at the agency's discretion.

The father sought the child's return.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the father's mental health, impulsive and risky behavior, and exposure to domestic violence.

The court ordered the child's placement with the paternal grandparents under a 12-month supervision order, with no access to either parent, and issued a restraining order against the father due to his non-compliance with previous orders and chaotic, hostile conduct during the trial.

The applicant mother sought an order for security for costs and a pre-condition of leave for the respondent father to bring any future motion to change a support order.

The court reviewed the father's extensive litigation history, including repeated non-compliance with disclosure orders, late payment of costs, and withdrawal of motions on the eve of trial, which constituted an abuse of process.

Citing the Family Law Rules, the court affirmed its jurisdiction to impose such conditions to prevent further frivolous litigation.

The court ordered that the father must obtain leave, accompanied by evidence of payment of outstanding costs and an initial security for costs of $9,000, before bringing any motion to change.

If leave is granted, an additional $31,000 in security for costs would be required.

The mother was awarded costs for the motion.

This was a three-day trial concerning an amended protection application by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAST) seeking extended society care for a 17-year-old youth with severe special needs.

The parents, largely uncooperative and unrepresented, sought the youth's immediate return to their care, including a plan to return to China.

The court found the youth in need of protection under ss. 74(2)(b) and (e) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, due to neglect and the parents' inability to meet his high needs and consistent refusal of services.

The court determined that extended society care was in the youth's best interests, primarily to ensure access to crucial lifelong adult services after he turns 18, which would not be available under a supervision order or parental care.

The parents' plan was deemed insufficient and lacking in detail.

The court granted extended society care with specified access to the parents.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs awarded to the father, O’Neil Orlando Nelson, following his largely successful motion to change a previous order.

The court reviewed the principles of costs, emphasizing their modern purposes beyond mere indemnification, including encouraging settlement, sanctioning inappropriate behaviour, and ensuring cases are dealt with justly.

The mother, Camelia Dacianne Davidson, failed to comply with court orders for parenting time and did not make any offers to settle, while the father made repeated offers that mirrored the trial outcome.

The court found the father's position reasonable and his lawyer's time and rates appropriate.

The father initiated a motion to change, seeking modifications to prior consent orders regarding parenting.

The mother responded with claims for child support, including retroactive support from January 2015, and imputation of income to the father.

The court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to provide financial disclosure and not paying support for many years, despite a history of violence that caused the mother to withdraw previous support claims.

The court imputed income to the father for the years 2015-2020 and ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2015, deviating from the presumptive three-year retroactivity period due to the father's conduct and the mother's understandable delay.

The father brought a motion to change a 2017 consent order for child support and to reduce arrears, citing a significant change in circumstances including job loss, health issues, and additional children.

The court found that the father failed to provide adequate evidence and financial disclosure to substantiate his claims of changed circumstances or undue hardship.

Consequently, the court dismissed the father's motion, maintaining the original child support order and arrears.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion to change brought by the mother (Logan) regarding child support.

The mother claimed full recovery costs of $4,648.44, which were unopposed by the father (Mills).

The court reviewed the principles of costs, emphasizing their role in indemnification, encouraging settlement, sanctioning inappropriate behaviour, and ensuring justice.

The father's conduct, including his failure to provide financial disclosure and intentional under-employment, was deemed unreasonable.

The court found the mother's claimed costs reasonable and proportionate, ordering the father to pay the full amount.

The father was also restricted from bringing future motions to change without leave.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment on a status review application concerning two children, De. (12) and Da. (11).

The agency sought custody of the children to their father under s. 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, with specified access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the children's return to her care or, alternatively, generous access, arguing genuine issues requiring a trial.

The father supported the agency's request.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's lack of insight into protection concerns and the children's settled placement with the father.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, awarding custody to the father and establishing a detailed access schedule for the mother, along with orders for passports and travel without the mother's consent.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a multi-year custody and access dispute between a maternal aunt (Applicant) and a temporary caregiver (Respondent Rikka Vescio) following the child's mother's death.

Although the main custody issue settled by consent, the litigation continued for 15 months over access, complicated by the child's immigration status and the aunt's adoption plans in the U.S. The court found the maternal aunt to be the successful party in the overall litigation and awarded her $25,000 in costs, finding the respondent's conduct in prolonging the litigation unreasonable, despite her not formally claiming costs in her initial pleadings.

This decision concerns the quantum of costs awarded to the applicant mother following a two-day trial for child support.

The trial determined the father's income for support and his undue hardship claim, with the mother being successful.

The court reviewed the modern purposes of costs, including indemnification, encouraging settlement, discouraging inappropriate behaviour, and ensuring justice.

The father's conduct, which included disputing paternity without follow-through, delaying disclosure, lack of forthrightness, and unreasonable positions on support and undue hardship, was heavily criticized as flagrant, reckless, and profoundly irresponsible.

Despite the father's plea for sympathy, the court found his behaviour warranted a costs award.

The court fixed costs at $9,000, the amount claimed by the mother, finding it fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the father's conduct and the mother's reasonable offer to settle.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion to change brought by the father concerning access to the child.

The motion was stayed because the father failed to comply with a prior consent order requiring a proper psychiatric assessment.

The mother, who was the responding party to the motion to change, sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court awarded the mother $5,000 in costs, finding her offer to settle, which proposed the father withdraw his motion and obtain a proper assessment, was reasonable and closely aligned with the court's eventual decision to stay the motion.

The court emphasized the importance of proportionality, reasonableness, and the role of costs in encouraging settlement and discouraging unreasonable litigation conduct.

The mother sought permission to relocate temporarily with two young children (ages 4 and 12 months) from Toronto to Ottawa pending trial.

The father opposed the motion, arguing the move would marginalize his role as father and prejudice his position at trial.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding compelling circumstances existed to permit the temporary relocation.

The mother was the primary caregiver, the children were thriving in her care, and the move would provide financial security, family support, and emotional stability.

The distance was not prohibitive, and the father could relocate to Ottawa if he wished to maintain contact with the children.

This is a status review application in a child protection matter involving an 11-year-old child who had been in the care of the Children's Aid Society for 33 months.

The court determined that the child was in need of protection and that intervention through a court order was necessary.

The applicant sought extended society care with access at the agency's discretion.

The respondent mother sought placement of the child in her care subject to a supervision order.

The court found that the mother's mental health issues, lack of insight, combative behaviour, and failure to address protection concerns made her unsuitable to care for the child.

The court ordered extended society care with access to the mother at the agency's discretion.

This is a ten-day trial involving a status review application for three children and a protection application for a fourth child.

The court determined that all four children should be placed in the custody of the mother under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The father's access was ordered to be supervised, occurring every other week for two hours at a Supervised Access Centre.

The court found that the children were at risk of harm while in the father's care, that the father had engaged in a campaign to undermine the mother's relationship with the children, that the children had thrived in the mother's care since March 2018, and that the father lacked insight into his shortcomings and was ungovernable by court orders or the child protection agency.

A costs decision in a family law application involving custody, access, and child support.

The application was resolved through three case conferences resulting in a final settlement.

Both parents claimed costs, but the court found the mother was the more successful party.

The father was ordered to pay the mother's costs in the amount of $10,000 all-inclusive, representing a fair and reasonable amount proportionate to the issues involved.

The mother sought to relocate with the five-year-old child to Mongolia.

The father opposed the relocation and sought joint custody and increased access.

The court found a material change in circumstances and permitted the mother to relocate, finding that the move was in the child's best interests despite the reduction in contact with the father.

The court rejected the father's claim for joint custody, finding insufficient history of cooperation between the parents.

Child support was adjusted retroactively based on the father's actual income since the original order.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change child support orders.

The respondent father brought a motion to change support provisions of two child support orders made in 2011 and 2012.

The mother successfully opposed the motion.

The court found the father engaged in egregious conduct including repeated failures to comply with disclosure orders, providing incomplete and misleading financial information, and demonstrating a long-term, wilful disregard for court orders and his child support obligations.

The mother was awarded full recovery costs of $12,161.96 all included.

The court emphasized that ability to pay is not a bar to costs awards when a party has acted unreasonably, and that costs serve important functions including sanctioning inappropriate behaviour and ensuring the integrity of the justice system.