Debora Canedo Brubacher

This costs endorsement follows a high-conflict family law trial in which the applicant, Monica Cecilia Izquierdo Rubio, was awarded sole decision-making responsibility for the parties’ child, with the respondent, Martin Berendson Leigh, receiving no parenting time except under strict conditions.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, the reasonableness and proportionality of legal fees, and the impact of recent amendments to the Family Law Rules.

The respondent’s unreasonable and, in part, bad-faith conduct is detailed, including breaches of court orders, manipulation of evidence, and family violence.

The court fixes costs at $100,000, inclusive of HST, with $10,000 enforceable as a support order.

The applicant mother fled Peru with the parties' child due to the respondent father's severe and prolonged family violence.

The father followed them to Canada and engaged in a campaign of harassment, cyberbullying, and vexatious litigation.

Following the dismissal of the father's Hague Convention application, the court conducted a 7-week trial to determine parenting, child support, and protection issues.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, with no parenting time for the father except under strict conditions initiated by the mother or child.

The court also imputed minimum wage income to the father for child support, issued a final restraining order, and declared the father a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The mother brought a motion to dismiss the father's new application for access under the Hague Convention, arguing it was an abuse of process and an attempt to relitigate issues already decided in a previous trial.

The court agreed, finding the new application was a vexatious attempt to relitigate the concluded Hague Convention trial, which was currently under appeal.

The court dismissed the father's application as an abuse of process under Rule 16(12) of the Family Law Rules.

However, the court declined to declare the father a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, noting such a declaration requires a formal application rather than a motion.

The father applied under the Hague Convention for the return of the child to Peru.

Within this application, both parties brought motions: the father sought expanded in-person access, and the mother requested the appointment of the Children's Lawyer.

The court granted the father supervised in-person access, conditional on his entry into Canada and compliance with COVID-19 restrictions, replacing previous virtual access.

The court also ordered a Voice of the Child Report from the Children's Lawyer, emphasizing it should not delay the main Hague Convention hearing.

The decision considered the child's best interests and allegations of family violence.

The respondent mother, having been the successful party in previous motions concerning parenting time, sought costs.

The applicant father opposed the costs request and sought his own costs.

The court found no evidence of unreasonable behavior by either party that would displace the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs.

The respondent mother's offers to settle did not meet the formal requirements for enhanced cost consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected the applicant father's argument that the respondent mother's legal aid funding should limit the recoverable costs to Legal Aid rates, reaffirming that legally aided clients are entitled to recover costs at private retainer rates.

The court fixed the respondent mother's costs for the original motions at $2,500 and awarded an additional $500 for the preparation of costs submissions, totaling $3,000.

The applicant father sought to restore a previous parenting schedule (Friday after-school to Monday morning) for the two children (aged 9 and 6).

The respondent mother brought cross-motions to restrict the father's parenting time, initially seeking no overnight access, but later proposing a compromise of Saturday 10:00 a.m. to Sunday 8:00 p.m.

The court found that the children were exhibiting troubling behaviours, including self-harm by the younger child, which constituted a compelling reason to disturb the status quo.

The court also found that the father had exposed the children to adult conflict, including manipulative behaviour during a phone call.

The court dismissed the father's motion to restore the prior schedule and granted the mother's compromise proposal for an interim parenting schedule, along with mutual orders prohibiting disparagement and discussion of litigation in the children's presence.