Diana Piccoli

In a Hague Convention return application, the moving party sought the child’s return to Ohio after removal to Ontario.

The court determined the child’s habitual residence was Ohio immediately before the April 24, 2025 removal and found the removal wrongful under the Convention.

The court rejected defences of consent or acquiescence and grave risk of harm or intolerable situation under Article 13.

The court ordered the child’s immediate return to Ohio, subject to undertakings, and declined to order police enforcement at this stage.

This costs endorsement follows a 13.5-day trial in a family law matter.

The court considered the parties’ submissions on costs, the divided success at trial, and the reasonableness of offers to settle.

The court applied the Family Law Rules and relevant case law, ultimately ordering the respondent, Mr. Elliott, to pay the applicant, Ms. Churchill, $15,000 in costs.

This decision addresses a high-conflict family law dispute involving decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and spousal support between Katherine Churchill and Christopher David Elliott.

The court considered the best interests of the children, the credibility of the parties, and the recommendations of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court ordered a week-about parenting schedule for N.E., parallel decision-making (with Mr. Elliott responsible for health and Ms. Churchill for dental and extracurriculars), and set child support obligations.

The court declined to set aside the separation agreement for spousal support due to insufficient pleadings and evidence.

The OCL’s recommendations were not followed due to concerns about neutrality and methodology.

The Respondent (mother) brought a motion seeking partition and sale of a jointly owned property, with proceeds to pay off a mortgage on another property solely owned by her, which the Applicant (father) had guaranteed.

The father opposed the sale and the use of proceeds to pay the mortgage.

The court granted the partition and sale of the jointly owned property, finding the mother had a prima facie right and the father failed to show sufficient reason to refuse the sale.

The court ordered the proceeds to first pay off the collateral mortgage on the mother's property, and then the remaining funds to be disbursed equally between the parties.

The mother's requests for sole carriage, dispensing with the father's consent, and exclusive possession were denied as premature or unsupported by evidence.

Child support was resolved by consent.

This is a costs endorsement following a 3-day trial where most issues were settled.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing the Respondent acted unreasonably and that his January 10, 2024 offer to settle was as favourable as the outcome.

The Respondent sought no costs or a significant reduction, citing the Applicant's unreasonable behavior, lack of bill detail, and undue hardship.

The court found the Applicant's January 10 offer not as favourable, but his January 26 offer was successful.

The court determined the Applicant was largely successful on settled issues, particularly regarding parenting time and child support, and the pension division.

While the Respondent's income position was unreasonable, her overall behavior was not so unreasonable to warrant full indemnity costs from the outset.

Due to the Applicant's insufficiently detailed bill of costs, the court estimated a reasonable and proportionate amount.

The Respondent's ability to pay was considered but not a shield.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant $40,000 in costs.

This is a costs endorsement following a long motion in a family law matter.

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs due to the Respondent's alleged unreasonable conduct, bad faith, and failure to comply with court orders and disclosure obligations.

The Respondent argued for divided success and that each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the Respondent's failure to comply with orders and disclosure obligations unreasonable, noting it complicated the matter, but did not find it crossed the threshold for "bad faith." Considering the Applicant's reasonable efforts to settle and the Respondent's unreasonable conduct regarding disclosure, the court awarded the Applicant $25,000 in costs, with 50% enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

The court heard a three-day trial primarily to resolve the division of the applicant's pension and costs, as other family law issues were settled by consent.

The central dispute was whether the applicant's pension should be divided by an immediate lump sum transfer to the respondent or paid in cash.

Applying s. 10.1(4) of the Family Law Act, the court ordered the immediate lump sum transfer, finding it would create a more equitable balance of liquid assets and retirement savings for both parties.

The court also determined that requiring a cash payment for an underfunded pension would be unfair to the applicant.

The "best interests of the children" was considered but deemed not a proper factor in this financial context, and in any event, would not have changed the decision.

The Applicant and Respondent both brought motions concerning financial issues, including spousal and child support, disclosure, and property matters.

Key issues for determination included the registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property solely owned by the Respondent, striking the Respondent's pleadings for non-disclosure, and the repayment of funds removed from joint accounts post-separation.

The court ordered the Respondent to repay $25,000 to the Applicant, ordered extensive financial disclosure from both parties (with a focus on the Respondent's corporate and personal finances), and imposed a non-dissipation order on the Respondent's solely owned property, requiring 90 days' notice of sale and deposit of proceeds into a corporate account.

The Applicant's request to strike pleadings and register a CPL was denied, though the Respondent was prohibited from bringing further financial motions without leave until disclosure compliance.

The court heard a 6-day trial concerning parenting, decision-making, and child support for a 5-year-old child.

Key issues included primary residence during the school year, the parenting schedule, school attendance, medical and dental decision-making, and imputation of income to the mother.

The court found the mother's credibility lacking on serious allegations against the father and her income.

It determined that the child's primary residence should be with the father in Kitchener-Waterloo due to stability and existing support systems, maximizing the mother's parenting time with three weekends per month and one overnight.

Joint decision-making for medical and dental care was ordered.

The court imputed an income of $42,900 per annum to the mother, effective January 1, 2024, based on her earning capacity in medical aesthetics, and ordered her to pay child support of $392 per month if she remains more than 30 km from Kitchener.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a four-day trial.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs of $66,220.84, citing her success and the Respondent's unreasonable and bad faith conduct, including failure to provide financial disclosure and asset depletion.

The Respondent, self-represented, requested more time for submissions, which was denied due to non-compliance with previous orders.

The court found the Respondent acted in bad faith, intending to inflict emotional harm and conceal financial status, and that his conduct was unreasonable.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the Applicant $50,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, and ordered these costs to be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, as child support was the principal issue in the underlying trial.

The Applicant, Patricia Beaudoin, brought a motion to change a separation agreement, seeking retroactive and ongoing child support and special expenses from the Respondent, Paul John Stevens.

The Respondent, self-represented, sought to uphold the existing agreements.

The court found the Respondent intentionally underemployed, unreasonably deducted expenses, and failed to provide financial disclosure, leading to an imputation of income of $150,000 annually from 2018 onwards.

The court ordered retroactive child support from January 2015 and ongoing support, as well as a portion of special expenses.

A lien was ordered against the Respondent's property to secure the retroactive child support due to his blameworthy conduct and stated intention to avoid obligations.

The Applicant's request to set aside the 2014 Amending Agreement on the basis of duress was denied.

The Children's Aid Society of Waterloo Region brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order for their Openness Application to proceed under s. 197 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA).

The children are Métis and were adopted by the adoptive parents.

The motion addressed whether the Openness Application could proceed despite alleged failures by the Society to properly serve the Métis Nation of Ontario and an unidentified First Nation band, as required by the CYFSA.

The court found that formal service and notice to the Métis community were not required for the Openness Application to proceed, as the Métis Nation of Ontario is not a "listed community" under the Act, and the determination of a child's community for statutory notice purposes is a ministerial, not judicial, function.

The court ordered the Openness Application to proceed under s. 197 and expedited the trial management conference and openness hearing.

This 10-day trial addressed complex family law issues between unmarried parents, including decision-making authority, child relocation, and financial matters.

The court found the father not credible and noted a pattern of family violence.

The mother was granted sole decision-making authority and permission to relocate with the child to British Columbia, as it was deemed in the child's best interests due to the mother's stronger support network and the father's unsupportive and abusive conduct.

The father was ordered to pay child support arrears and a higher proportion of travel costs, and the court declined to impute income to the mother.

The child's surname was changed to include both parents' names.

This endorsement concerns a temporary care hearing under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society, the mother, the maternal grandparents, and the Office of the Children's Lawyer sought to have the child remain in the care of the maternal grandparents.

The father sought to have the child placed in his care.

The court found that the maternal grandparents and mother had "charge of the child" immediately before the CAS intervention.

Applying the laddered approach under s. 94(2) of the CYFSA, and finding no protection concerns with the maternal grandparents, the court ordered the child to remain in their temporary care and custody.

The court also considered the least disruptive placement and the child's best interests, both of which supported placement with the maternal grandparents, despite the father's arguments and historical concerns regarding his conduct.

This is a costs endorsement following a five-day family law trial.

The Applicant Father sought various reliefs, including changes to parenting schedules and child counselling, most of which were either resolved by agreement or dismissed.

The Respondent Mother disputed the Father's claims and sought costs.

The court found the Mother substantially successful on parenting issues and more reasonable in her conduct, despite her failure to provide complete financial disclosure for child support calculations.

The Father's offers to settle were deemed unreasonable and non-severable, and some of his requested orders were outside the court's jurisdiction.

Considering the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the Mother's success on key issues, the court awarded the Mother $30,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The court determined costs following a seven-day family law trial concerning custody, parenting, and child support.

The Mother was found to be substantially successful at trial and acted reasonably, making multiple settlement offers.

The Father made only one offer, close to trial, and was unsuccessful on his main claims.

The Mother was awarded $45,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The Father's request for costs related to a resolved medical records motion was denied, as there was no compelling reason to award costs for a settled matter.

Of the total costs, $4,500 (10%) was deemed enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, reflecting the proportion of time spent on child support issues.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking interim care and custody of a newborn child, K.B., and discretionary supervised access for the parents.

The Mother, E.B., conceded the child was in need of protection but sought the child's return under a supervision order, or frequent access if placed in Society care.

The court found the child should remain in the interim care of the Society, citing concerns about the Mother's past care of another child and recent improvements being too new.

The court also ordered more diligent in-person access for the Mother, criticizing the Society's blanket no-in-person access policy during COVID-19 without medical evidence.

The respondent mother, J.N., brought an urgent motion to reinstate her parenting time with her three children, which had been suspended by the Children's Aid Society (CAS) due to a blanket no in-person access policy implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The CAS supported the mother's request, but the respondent fathers, A.F. and M.S., opposed it, citing historical concerns about the mother's mental health, substance abuse, and alleged non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

The court applied principles from *Ribeiro v. Wright* and other cases, emphasizing that a blanket suspension of access without alternative measures is inconsistent with a child's best interests and that the onus is on the party seeking to restrict access to provide specific evidence of risk.

The court found no evidence that the mother would put the children at risk and determined it was in the children's best interests to resume face-to-face contact.

The motion was granted, reinstating the mother's pre-pandemic access schedule with agreed-upon terms regarding substance use and COVID-19 protocols.

The Respondent brought a motion seeking to dismiss the Applicant's 26-year-old family law application for delay and to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) registered against a property.

The Applicant provided extensive reasons for the delay, including severe health issues, financial hardship, and alleged abuse by the Respondent.

The court found that the Applicant successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice arising from the inordinate delay and that the Respondent failed to demonstrate actual prejudice.

Furthermore, the court determined there was a triable issue regarding the Applicant's constructive trust claim in the property, which weighed against discharging the CPL.

Consequently, the Respondent's motion was dismissed, the CPL remained in place, and an expedited trial on the outstanding issues was ordered.

The Applicant sought joint custody and a 50/50 parenting schedule, with no child support.

The Respondent sought sole custody and primary residence, with guideline child support.

The court found that the parties were unable to communicate effectively for the children's best interests, citing the Applicant's anger issues, substance abuse, and controlling behaviour.

The court granted the Respondent sole custody and maintained the existing parenting schedule, which did not meet the 40% threshold for shared custody.

The Applicant was ordered to pay guideline child support of $650 per month and a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses.