Devin Maguire

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion finding the respondent in contempt for unilaterally relocating the parties' children and dismissing the respondent's cross-motion.

The court found that the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith by willfully breaching a court order and making unfounded allegations of abuse to justify the relocation.

The applicant was awarded costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $11,198.44.

The applicant father brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for unilaterally relocating their three children more than 50 kilometres from Hamilton, contrary to a final mediated agreement and court order, and for restricting his access.

The mother brought a cross-motion for custody and transfer of proceedings, asserting she believed the order was withdrawn and alleging an assault by the father.

The court found the mother in contempt, rejected her justifications and assault allegations, and found her actions detrimental to the children's interests.

The court varied the previous order, granting primary residence of the children to the father and ordering an Office of the Children's Lawyer investigation.

The applicant, Uzma Shahid, sought preservation and transfer of assets from her estranged husband, Shahid Ayyub, and his business associate, Nadeem Ahmed, alleging asset depletion and fraud.

Mr. Ayyub had defaulted in the main application.

The court found that Mr. Ahmed had received substantial funds from Mr. Ayyub, which Ms. Shahid alleged were proceeds of fraud due to forged signatures on investment agreements.

The court drew an adverse inference from Mr. Ahmed's incomplete disclosure and ordered the continuation of asset freezing and the transfer of $128,000 from Mr. Ahmed to Ms. Shahid's solicitor as security for child support, spousal support, and equalization payments.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

Following a family law trial involving custody, support, and property issues, the court determined costs between the parties.

The respondent spouse had been largely successful at trial, including on custody and support, while the applicant spouse achieved only a modest equalization payment.

The court reviewed the parties’ settlement offers under the Family Law Rules and found the respondent’s offer demonstrated a reasonable assessment of the issues, while both parties had engaged in some unreasonable litigation conduct.

Although the respondent claimed nearly $85,000 in full recovery costs, the court held the matter was not complex and that the involvement of two counsel and more than 250 hours of work was excessive.

The court awarded $32,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and HST, with a portion deemed enforceable as a support order.