Dilani Gunarajah

On a motion to change final parenting-related orders, the moving party sought broader parenting time and revised travel terms, while the responding party sought to preserve most of the existing regime with her own modifications.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the child's autism diagnosis, the responding party's eight-month suspension of contact, and unilateral relocation attempts without notice or consent.

Applying the best-interests analysis under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court varied the parenting schedule to increase the moving party's time in a structured way tied to the child's needs and the parties' communication history.

The court also imposed mutual written-consent requirements for out-of-Ontario travel, not to be unreasonably withheld, and consolidated the governing terms into one final order.

The applicant brought a motion for a restraining order or, in the alternative, a no contact order against the respondent.

The parties had a fraught history, with the respondent facing pending criminal charges for uttering threats.

The court declined to issue a restraining order, finding it to be a serious tool not appropriate at this stage given the untested allegations and lack of recent violence.

However, the court granted a temporary no contact order under section 28 of the Children's Law Reform Act to maintain stability and address the applicant's subjective fear.

The respondent, Muhammad Akhtar Agha, brought a motion seeking to change an interim child support order, vacate an exclusive possession order, appoint a litigation guardian for the applicant, obtain consent for CAS records release, reissue an OCL involvement order, sever the divorce, and dismiss the case.

The applicant, Zohra Fatima, sought to dismiss the motion due to the respondent's failure to obtain leave, her health, and non-compliance with prior orders.

The court dismissed all of the respondent's motions, finding no material change in circumstances to justify a change in child support, no reason to re-issue the OCL order, and that severing the divorce would invalidate the exclusive possession order.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay costs and prohibited him from bringing further motions without leave.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a final settlement in a family law matter where both the mother (applicant) and father (respondent) sought costs.

The court found the father's claims for decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and spousal support to be unrealistic and meritless, unnecessarily extending the litigation.

Despite the settlement, the court found a compelling reason to award costs to the mother due to the father's unreasonable behaviour.

The mother was deemed the successful party for costs purposes, and the father was ordered to pay $6,000 in costs.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family properties, a declaration of a bare trust regarding a property, and retroactive child support in an uncontested trial.

The court dismissed the bare trust claim, finding no certainty of intention.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $65,444 and retroactive child support of $14,229 based on an imputed income of $40,000 due to his failure to provide financial disclosure.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the applicant.

Following a successful application under the Hague Convention for the return of a wrongfully removed child, the applicant sought full recovery costs and expenses.

The respondent had failed to comply with the court's return order and disappeared with the child in France.

The court found the respondent's conduct to be in bad faith and unreasonable.

The applicant was awarded full recovery costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and necessary expenses under Article 26 of the Hague Convention, totaling $40,413.

The applicant father brought a motion under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of the child to France, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent mother.

The mother argued the child was habitually resident in Canada and that returning the child to France posed a grave risk of harm.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in France immediately prior to the removal and that the mother's evidence did not meet the high threshold for the grave risk exception under Article 13(b).

The court ordered the child's forthwith return to France.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial concerning parenting and support arrangements for five children.

The applicant (mother) sought $10,000 in costs, while the respondent (father) did not make submissions.

The court found the mother was largely successful on the substantive issues, including primary residence, decision-making, and retroactive child support.

The father's conduct was deemed unreasonable due to failure to pay support, incomplete and untimely financial disclosure, and meritless positions at trial.

Although the mother's offer to settle did not meet the technical requirements of Rule 18(14) and was not severable, the court still awarded costs based on the father's unreasonable conduct and the mother's success.

The court ordered the father to pay the mother $8,500 in costs.

The trial concerned parenting and child support for five children.

The mother sought primary residence, sole decision-making, and retroactive child support, including imputation of income to the father.

The father sought primary residence and sole decision-making, or equal parenting time, and opposed retroactive support.

The court granted the mother primary residence and sole decision-making, finding the father's allegations unsupported and his conduct controlling and disrespectful.

The court imputed income to the father due to intentional under-employment and ordered retroactive child support from June 1, 2018, with a payment plan for significant arrears, considering the father's blameworthy conduct and the children's hardship.

This endorsement from a settlement conference addresses procedural steps in a family law dispute where parties have limited financial resources for litigation.

The court adjourned the conference to facilitate access to unbundled legal services and mediation for the self-represented applicant, and also for the respondent.

It ordered the release of $5,000 from matrimonial home sale proceeds to each party for these specific legal purposes, emphasizing the disproportionate cost of a full trial.

Following a motion where the applicant was permitted to amend the application, the respondent was unsuccessful on disclosure, and neither party obtained an advance of funds, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $2,073.06 and the respondent sought $17,500.00.

Considering the mixed success and the parties' offers, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent costs of $3,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The applicant moved for an advance on funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home, leave to amend his application, and disclosure of a deed and survey for the respondent's property in Sri Lanka.

The respondent also requested an advance from the trust funds.

The court dismissed both requests for an advance, finding it could not determine a minimum equalization payment on the record.

The court granted the applicant leave to amend his application, conditional on paying costs, and ordered the respondent to produce the deed and survey for the Sri Lankan property to facilitate a previously ordered appraisal.

The respondent father sought to set aside a final child support order made in 2013 on the grounds of lack of service and failure to appear, or alternatively, to vary the order retroactively based on a change in circumstances.

The applicant mother opposed both requests.

The court found that the father had adequate notice of the proceedings through service of an amended application and related documents, and that he failed to provide satisfactory reasons for his non-appearance.

The court dismissed the request to set aside the order.

However, the court found that the father's actual income was substantially less than the $150,000 imputed by the original judge, and that there had been a material change in circumstances.

The court varied the order retroactively from January 1, 2014, determining the father's income based on a lifestyle analysis that revealed significant unreported cash income.

The court also accounted for the birth of a second child in 2015 as a change in circumstances.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order striking the respondent father's pleadings for non-disclosure and for child and spousal support based on imputing income of $95,800 to the father retroactive to October 2016.

The respondent father filed a cross-motion requesting income be imputed to him at $76,960 or lesser amounts and for specified Skype access.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, finding the father had substantially complied with disclosure requirements.

The court declined to impute income to the father, finding his actual income should be used.

The court ordered child support arrears and ongoing child support based on the father's actual income, and ordered temporary spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, finding the mother had established a prima facie case for entitlement on both compensatory and need bases.

This is a costs endorsement following a three-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for three children.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $34,843 after obtaining a successful judgment on most issues, including sole custody of the children.

The respondent (father) failed to file costs submissions within the required timeline and subsequently sought his own costs in his response, which the court found procedurally improper and substantively without merit.

The court awarded costs to the successful party (the mother) in the amount of $22,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, taking into account the respondent's unreasonable conduct, limited financial circumstances, and poor litigation decisions.

A trial concerning parenting arrangements and child support for three children, including one with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The mother sought sole custody, restrictions on the father's contact, and retroactive child support.

The father sought joint custody with parallel parenting and extended access.

The court found a history of domestic violence by the father, his alcohol abuse, and his failure to support the children financially.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, ordered supervised access exchanges, restricted the father's contact with the mother, and ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2017.

On a family law appeal from a motion to change, the court considered retroactive child support and s. 7 expenses for children who were adults by the time the responding claim was advanced.

The court held that jurisdiction existed to determine retroactive support despite the children no longer being dependants, but found the motion judge erred in finding blameworthy conduct and in selecting an unsupported retroactive start date.

Applying the retroactive support framework, the court fixed June 6, 2014 as the earliest permissible notice date and limited recovery accordingly.

Most claimed s. 7 expenses were disallowed, with only the appellant’s proportionate share of one child’s 2014 and 2015 tuition remaining payable.

The reasonable apprehension of bias ground failed, and appeal costs were awarded to the appellant.

The Ontario Children's Lawyer (OCL) sought leave to appeal a $20,000 costs order made against it following a custody trial.

The Divisional Court first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the costs order itself constituted a 'single payment' under $50,000 pursuant to s. 19(1.2)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court granted the OCL an extension of time to file its notice of motion, finding the brief delay reasonable.

Finally, the court granted leave to appeal, concluding that whether a court-appointed third party like the OCL has an obligation to seek court intervention when a party refuses to cooperate is a matter open to serious debate and of general public importance.

This family law trial addressed issues of custody, access, imputed income, child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, equalization, travel orders, and insurance.

The court ordered joint custody with allocated decision-making, granting the father authority over education and sports during his access time, and the mother over health and religion.

Primary residence remained with the mother.

Access was significantly increased for the father, including mid-week and shared holiday time, and daily phone contact.

The court imputed higher income to the father for 2013-2014 for support purposes and ordered spousal support for the mother for ten years.

An equalization payment was ordered from the mother to the father, and travel restrictions were placed on both parents regarding taking the child outside Canada until age 14.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion brought by the father seeking to stay or suspend enforcement of child support provisions in a separation agreement and to have the Director of the Family Responsibility Office hold collected funds pending resolution of his application to change child support.

The mother opposed the motion and sought immediate release of held funds.

The court found divided success on the motion, with the father obtaining an order that most funds be held pending further court order, but the mother obtaining immediate release of $10,400 and ongoing support of $800 per month.

The court fixed costs at $5,000 payable in the cause, finding that neither party was more successful than the other and that the time claimed by the father was excessive relative to the issues at stake.