Darrell S. Waisberg

The applicant wife sought costs arising from her successful motion to strike the husband's pleadings due to his ongoing breaches of court orders.

The court found the husband's conduct unreasonable and awarded the wife $50,000 in costs.

Additionally, the court awarded Grandhill Capital Inc., a non-party, $10,000 in costs, payable by the husband, due to the wife's withdrawn relief against Grandhill, which was necessitated by the husband's conduct.

The court emphasized proportionality and reasonableness in costs awards, reducing the wife's claimed costs from $120,000 as excessive despite the husband's unreasonable behavior.

The court provided clarification regarding the operative priorities of payments from the respondent's frozen Canaccord accounts, as requested by Justice Diamond.

The endorsement clarified that a January 5, 2024 order, which required the liquidation of assets up to $7,975,007.60 to be paid to the applicant's barristers in trust, takes precedence.

Consequently, no further funds are to be paid out of these specific Canaccord accounts for the children's tuition or any other reason under earlier orders (October 5, 2021, or November 12, 2021) until the specified amount has been fully paid to the barristers.

The court also dismissed the respondent's procedural objections regarding the motion.

This is a costs endorsement following a three-day Hague Convention trial where the child was ordered returned to Texas.

The applicant father sought $60,000 in costs, while the respondent mother argued the amount was excessive and requested a six-month deferral due to her limited financial means.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules and the expanded costs authority under Article 26 of the Hague Convention, found the father to be the successful party.

The mother's conduct, including child abduction and non-compliance with orders, was deemed unreasonable.

The court fixed costs at $32,000, including legal fees, disbursements, and the father's transportation expenses for the child's return.

A graduated payment schedule was ordered in consideration of the mother's financial circumstances, but her request for a six-month deferral was denied to ensure immediacy of costs consequences.

The applicant father sought the return of four children to Norway under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after the respondent mother retained them in Ontario following a purported vacation.

The court found that the father had not consented to a permanent relocation and that the mother altered the travel consent document to facilitate departure from Norway.

The children’s habitual residence was determined to be Trondheim, Norway, and their retention in Ontario constituted wrongful retention under Article 3 of the Hague Convention.

The court rejected the respondent’s reliance on the grave risk exception under Article 13(b), finding insufficient objective evidence that returning the children would expose them to physical or psychological harm.

Ontario lacked jurisdiction to determine custody under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to Norway.