Deepa Singh

This is a costs decision following the court's dismissal of the applicant's application on jurisdictional grounds.

The respondent sought costs of $4,062.00 on a partial recovery basis, while the applicant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court applied the Family Law Rules framework and found the respondent entitled to costs as the successful party.

However, the court reduced the award to $2,800.00 on a partial recovery basis, finding certain entries in the respondent's bill of costs excessive and not reasonably justified given the narrow nature of the motion.

The court considered the applicant's limited financial means as a factor in determining the amount but did not use it as a shield against liability.

Following the breakdown of their common law relationship, the parties sought to divide the net proceeds from the sale of their jointly owned home.

The applicant claimed an unequal division based on unjust enrichment for paying the mortgage, while the respondent's father claimed repayment for a $6,000 loan and the cost of home renovations he performed.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the parties had agreed to share expenses according to their means.

The court ordered the $6,000 loan to be repaid from the joint proceeds but found the home renovations were a gift, rebutting the presumption of a resulting trust.

The net proceeds were divided with specific adjustments for initial contributions, closing costs, and legal fees.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for custody, access, and child support on the grounds that the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over the child.

The applicant and respondent were married in India and had one child born in 2017.

The respondent resided in British Columbia while the applicant resided in India.

After the applicant and child arrived in British Columbia in July 2018, they left for Ontario on July 18, 2018, where the applicant filed her application on September 20, 2018.

The respondent had filed a competing application in British Columbia on August 31, 2018.

The court found that the child was not habitually resident in Ontario under section 22(1)(a) of the Children's Law Reform Act, as the respondent had not consented to or acquiesced in the child's removal to Ontario.

While five of the six criteria under section 22(1)(b) were satisfied, the court found that criterion (iii)—requiring no pending application in another jurisdiction where the child is habitually resident—was not met due to the pending British Columbia application.

Accordingly, the motion was granted and the application was dismissed.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant mother sought sole custody, retroactive and ongoing child support, and section 7 expenses for the parties' two children.

The respondent father had minimal contact with the children and paid minimal support since separation.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, imputed income to the father based on his 2014 earnings adjusted for inflation, and ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The mother was also awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

This family law trial addressed issues of joint versus sole custody for the parties' four-year-old son, past daycare expenses, section 7 expenses, child support arrears, and international travel with the child.

The court granted joint custody, finding that despite past disagreements, the parents demonstrated sufficient cooperation and ability to prioritize the child's best interests.

The father was ordered to pay past daycare expenses and child support arrears.

The father's request to travel internationally with the child was denied due to potential arrest in India, but with leave to reapply.

The respondent sought to modify a custody and access arrangement by requesting shared parenting on a weekly basis, arguing he had maintained regular involvement with his son since infancy, maintained stable employment and family circumstances, and lived in close proximity to the applicant.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the child was thriving under the current arrangement and that the respondent's motivation was partially financial.

The Children's Lawyer recommended maintaining sole custody with the applicant and increasing access to include alternate Thursday overnights.

The court accepted the Children's Lawyer's recommendations and dismissed the motion, finding that the child was performing well under the current arrangement and that the child himself preferred the status quo.