Cynthia Mancia

This decision addresses the costs of a decade-long family law proceeding.

The Respondent, M.M., sought full recovery of costs, alleging the Applicant, K.K., acted in bad faith.

The court found K.K. engaged in egregious bad faith conduct, including concealing financial information, presenting fabricated evidence, manipulating third parties, and repeatedly breaching court orders to inflict emotional, psychological, and financial harm on M.M. and alienate the children.

Consequently, the court awarded M.M. full recovery of trial-related costs and certain pre-trial costs, totaling $211,441, and stayed the enforcement of previous costs orders against M.M. due to K.K.'s oppressive conduct.

The applicant father sought the return of his six-year-old daughter to Norway pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after the respondent mother removed the child from Norway to Canada in February 2017 without his consent.

The respondent mother argued that the Convention did not apply because the child's habitual residence was Canada, not Norway, and that the father had no custodial rights.

Alternatively, she argued that exceptions to the Convention applied based on grave risk of harm and the child's objection to return.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Norway, that the father had custodial rights under Norwegian law, and that the removal was wrongful.

The court rejected both exceptions, finding that the mother's evidence of grave risk of harm was insufficient and that the child's objections were not based on substantial reasons but rather on parental influence and preference for her current life.

The court ordered the child's return to Norway.

Unmarried parents of a child born in Mexico brought the child to Chicago, Illinois in June 2015.

The mother left with the child in July 2015 and entered Canada, claiming she was fleeing an abusive relationship.

The father applied under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the child's return to Illinois.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the child had no habitual residence because the mother did not have a settled intention to reside in Illinois when she entered the United States.

Additionally, even if Illinois were the habitual residence, the removal was not wrongful because the father had no custody rights under Illinois law at the time of removal, and the emergency protection order he obtained was issued after the child had already entered Canada.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order regarding child support, spousal support, and custody arrangements.

The father had declared bankruptcy after failing to pay an equalization payment and costs to the respondent mother.

The motion judge had ordered the father to pay lump sum spousal support equal to the unpaid equalization payment and imposed a charging order on his assets.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the lump sum spousal support and charging order because the motion judge failed to properly consider the implications of the father's bankruptcy and the principles governing lump sum support.

The Court also ordered the mother to pay prospective child support for the daughter residing with the father.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to stay Ontario family law proceedings regarding custody of the parties' child.

The mother had moved from Indiana to Ontario while pregnant, and the child was born in Ontario.

The Indiana court had previously granted the father custody of the unborn child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act, as the child was physically present in Ontario, substantial evidence was available there, and the balance of convenience favoured Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought the return of her nearly six-year-old daughter to Trinidad under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.

The respondent father had wrongfully removed the child from Trinidad in November 2011 and retained her in Canada for approximately two and a half years without the mother's consent or acquiescence.

The father argued that Trinidad was not the child's habitual residence and raised defences under Articles 12 and 13 of the Convention, claiming the child was settled in her new environment and that return would pose a grave risk of harm.

The court found that Trinidad was the child's habitual residence, the removal was wrongful, the child was not sufficiently settled in Canada to invoke the Article 12 exception, and the Article 13 defences lacked credible evidence.

The court ordered the child's return to Trinidad in the mother's care.

The mother applied for permission to relocate with her two children (ages 14 and 12) from the Greater Toronto Area to Nigeria to live with her new husband, Mr. O., a prominent Nigerian businessman.

The father opposed the relocation and sought custody of the children if the mother moved.

The court applied the two-stage test from Gordon v. Goertz, finding a material change in circumstances and determining that the relocation was in the children's best interests.

The court granted the mother's application for a time-limited relocation until 2016, with structured access provisions for the father including four weeks in summer and two weeks during winter break in Canada, plus access in Nigeria.

The court found the mother to be a credible, child-focused parent with a well-considered plan, while the father demonstrated poor judgment and credibility issues.

The applicant mother sought child support for three children, asking the court to impute income to the respondent father who claimed to be unemployed and unable to work.

The court found the father was not credible, had hidden his financial affairs, and was intentionally unemployed to focus on foreign litigation.

Applying the test for imputing income, the court imputed an annual income of $53,319 to the father based on his earning capacity and foreign assets, and ordered him to pay the corresponding table amount of child support.