Howard Hurwitz

Following a 10-day trial on parenting issues where the respondent father was entirely successful, he sought partial indemnity costs of $350,000 plus half the costs of a section 30 assessment.

The court found that the applicant mother's conduct throughout the litigation was deplorable and unreasonable, driven by false allegations of abuse and alienating behaviours, though it fell just short of bad faith.

The court awarded the respondent his requested costs of $389,346.18, noting the amount was fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the complexity of the issues and the applicant's conduct.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding decision-making and parenting time for their seven-year-old daughter.

The father sought sole decision-making and the continuation of a 2/2/3 shared parenting schedule, while the mother sought sole decision-making, a reduction in the father's parenting time, and a change to the child's surname.

The court found that neither parent should have sole decision-making due to the risk of marginalizing the other, and instead ordered a parallel parenting regime with divided domains of authority.

The court maintained the 2/2/3 schedule to provide stability and dismissed the mother's request to change the child's surname.

The applicant mother sought joint custody, parallel decision-making, and equal parenting time of the parties' 10-year-old child.

The respondent father sought sole custody and decision-making responsibility, with the child spending 5 out of 14 days with the mother, along with therapeutic interventions.

The court found that the mother engaged in egregious post-separation conduct, including making unfounded allegations of physical and sexual abuse against the father, which caused emotional harm to the child and raised significant concerns of parental alienation.

Relying on expert assessments, the court concluded that the mother was unable to co-parent and that her hostility towards the father remained unresolved.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the father, limited the mother's parenting time to 5 out of 14 days, and ordered therapeutic supervision for the mother.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support and to determine the parenting schedule.

The parties agreed to a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule and that the respondent father would employ a live-in nanny during his parenting time.

The court held that the respondent's parenting time would not be suspended if the nanny was occasionally unavailable, and that the nanny's cost was a section 7 expense to be shared proportionately.

For support purposes, the court imputed income to the respondent under section 19(1)(i) of the Child Support Guidelines based on capital distributions he received from a trust, grossing up those tax-free amounts.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $327,000.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order that granted custody of the children to the respondent mother, seeking sole custody and primary residence.

The father alleged that the mother's parenting was deficient and that the children wished to live with him.

The court found no material change in circumstances, noting that the ongoing high conflict was primarily driven by the father's abusive and denigrating conduct towards the mother.

The court held that a change in custody was not in the children's best interests and dismissed the motion, leaving the original custody and access order in place.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking the recusal of the case management judge, alleging bias.

The judge had previously found the father engaged in severe parental alienation and ordered reintegration therapy, which the father repeatedly delayed and undermined.

Following a Divisional Court ruling that stayed other contested motions pending the recusal motion, the judge voluntarily withdrew from the case.

The judge issued a lengthy endorsement detailing the father's history of alienation, deception, and manipulation, explaining that his withdrawal was necessary to prevent the father from using the recusal motion to further delay proceedings and harm the children.

The parties separated after a 23-year marriage and engaged in a high-conflict custody dispute over their two children, one of whom has severe special needs.

The applicant mother sought joint custody and an equal time-sharing schedule, while the respondent father sought sole decision-making authority and primary residence for the special needs child during the school week.

The court found that the mother was unable to co-parent effectively, communicate with professionals, or prioritize the children's needs over her animosity toward the father.

The court granted sole decision-making authority to the father, ordered primary residence with the father for the special needs child during the school week to ensure consistency, and ordered an equal time-sharing schedule for the younger child.

The father's request to wind up a family trust was dismissed without prejudice due to procedural issues.

The respondent father brought a motion to increase his parenting time with the parties' daughter.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, relying on two separate, unfounded allegations of child abuse she had reported to the police and CAS.

A section 30 assessor recommended a gradual increase in the respondent's parenting time and joint custody.

The court found the assessor's report to be probative and held that increasing the respondent's parenting time was in the child's best interests and in furtherance of the maximum contact principle.

The court ordered a gradual increase in the respondent's parenting time but declined to change interim custody at this stage.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking an updated section 30 parenting assessment prior to trial.

The applicant father opposed the motion, arguing that the conflict between the parties had not changed and that the assessor could provide updated opinions via oral evidence at trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no significant change in circumstances to justify a further intrusive assessment and noting that the trial judge could adequately determine the issues with the original report and viva voce evidence.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding father.

The mother brought a motion for a stay of an order varying an interim parenting schedule pending her motion for leave to appeal.

The motion judge had varied the schedule to increase the father's parenting time based on observations from a Section 30 assessment report.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for a stay and found that the mother failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, as the motion judge's discretionary decision was well-founded and did not conflict with established case law.

The court also found no irreparable harm to the child and that the balance of convenience favoured the new schedule.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion to find the respondent father in contempt of a prior court order requiring his participation in reunification therapy and a section 30 assessment for their son.

The court found the father in contempt of the provisions requiring him to adhere to the therapy agreement and attend sessions, noting his deliberate and willful delay and refusal to cooperate.

The court dismissed the contempt allegations regarding communication with the therapist and payment of the assessor's retainer, as the latter is a payment order not enforceable by contempt under the Family Law Rules.

The father was ordered to pay a $25,000 fine, return the child to the mother, and was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment, which could be reduced or suspended upon compliance with specific conditions.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting schedule for the parties' child, following the release of a Section 30 assessment report.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the current schedule or implement Phase 1 of the assessor's recommendations.

The court found compelling reasons to change the temporary order, noting the high conflict between the parties and the stress caused by transitions.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the court ordered a 2-2-3 equal parenting schedule and set out detailed terms for transitions, communication, and holidays.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict family law trial over custody and access of their two children.

The father alleged the mother was engaging in parental alienation and sought to have the children removed from her care.

A section 30 assessment found 'hybrid alienation', noting the mother contributed to the children's extreme rejection of the father, but also that the father's own rigid and obsessive behaviour played a significant role.

The court granted the mother sole custody, finding it was not in the children's best interests to be removed from her care.

The father was granted supervised access and the parties were ordered to participate in reintegration therapy at the father's primary expense.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2013 consent order regarding custody and access of the parties' three children, seeking sole custody due to severe parental alienation by the respondent father.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence.

After a 14-day trial, the court found overwhelming evidence that the father had engaged in a relentless campaign of severe parental alienation, manipulating the children into unjustifiably rejecting their mother.

The court concluded there was a material change in circumstances and that a drastic response was required in the children's best interests.

The court granted the mother sole temporary custody, ordered the children to have no contact with the father or his extended family for a minimum of 90 days, and directed the mother and children to attend the Family Bridges reunification program.

Following a high-conflict custody trial where the respondent mother was found to have alienated the children, the applicant father sought costs of over $785,000.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the main action and full recovery for specific motions, finding the respondent engaged in unreasonable and bad faith conduct.

The court also apportioned the costs of the section 30 assessment and reintegration therapy, ordering the respondent to pay the majority of these expenses due to her alienating behaviour.

Total costs of $625,337.40 were awarded to the applicant.

The father sought costs following a bifurcated parenting trial where the court largely adopted the recommendations of a joint custody and access assessment.

The mother had initially sought sole custody but changed her position to shared custody during the trial.

The court found the mother's approach unreasonable and noted her counsel contributed to unnecessarily extending the trial.

The father was awarded $50,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements, plus the full cost of the expert's court attendance.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the applicant father sought sole custody of the parties' three children, alleging severe parental alienation by the respondent mother.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the mother had alienated the eldest child and that the younger children were at risk.

The court granted sole custody to the father and ordered the immediate implementation of a Phase II reunification program, which included a 90-day no-contact period between the children and the mother.

The father was also permitted to relocate with the children to Toronto.

Additionally, the court imputed an income of $40,000 to the mother for support purposes, ordered her to pay child support, ordered the father to pay spousal support, and resolved various net family property issues, including the valuation and treatment of a jointly leased cottage.

Following a seven-day custody and child support trial where the applicant father was awarded sole custody, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought full recovery costs based on his successful offers to settle and the respondent mother's unreasonable conduct.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by making unfounded reports to the Children's Aid Society, breaching court orders, and deceiving the court, which made the trial inevitable.

The applicant was awarded full recovery costs of $95,364.90, payable forthwith.

The applicant father sought sole custody of the parties' three-year-old child following a high-conflict separation.

The respondent mother, who had primary care since separation, repeatedly denied access, made unfounded complaints to child protection authorities, and engaged in alienating behaviour.

The court rejected a joint custody or parallel parenting arrangement due to the parents' complete inability to communicate.

Finding that the mother would continue to marginalize the father if she retained primary residence, the court awarded sole custody and primary residence to the father, with generous time-sharing to the mother.

The court also imputed income of $60,000 to both parties for child support purposes due to the father's unreasonable business deductions and the mother's failure to provide financial disclosure.

The parties separated after a high-conflict marriage.

The mother sought sole custody of the younger child, immediate access to the older child, and an order for 'deprogramming' the older child, alleging parental alienation by the father.

The father sought sole custody of both children.

The court found no evidence of parental alienation, but rather 'realistic estrangement' between the mother and the older child due to the mother's conduct.

The father was awarded sole custody of both children, with the older child residing primarily with him and the younger child sharing week-about residence.

The court imputed income of $63,000 to the mother for child support purposes and dismissed her claims for spousal support, retroactive child support, and a restraining order.

Equalization payments were ordered based on the March 2006 separation date.