Fadwa K. Yehia

Following a trial under the Hague Convention ordering the return of two children to the UK, the successful applicant father sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court found the respondent mother's conduct to be unreasonable, though stopping short of bad faith, and ordered her to pay $150,000 in costs.

In a high-conflict family law enforcement motion under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, the father sought to enforce an arbitration award requiring the mother to ensure the 17 and 15-year-old children attend reunification therapy.

On its own initiative, the court raised the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to order a Voice of the Child report.

The court held that it had jurisdiction under the Family Law Rules, its inherent jurisdiction to control its process, and its parens patriae jurisdiction.

Given the children's ages and the potential impact of the enforcement order on them, the court ordered a privately funded Voice of the Child report before proceeding with the enforcement motion.

The father brought a 14B motion seeking leave to commence a Motion to Change the parenting terms of a final judgment that restricted him to supervised virtual parenting time.

The prior judgment required the father to complete specific preconditions, including obtaining a comprehensive psychological assessment and engaging in targeted therapy, before seeking leave.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father's psychological assessment was unreliable and not comprehensive, his therapy evidence was insufficient, and his behaviour during supervised visits demonstrated ongoing ungovernability and failure to shield the child from adult conflict.

Following a 16-day family law trial, the mother sought full recovery costs of $342,216.40 based on her success, an offer to settle, and the father's bad faith.

The court found the mother achieved a more favourable result than her offer regarding parenting and child support, but not property division.

The court also found the father engaged in bad faith conduct during the trial.

The mother was awarded costs of $220,000 on a full recovery basis for the issues on which she was successful.

The court also ordered the father to pay $5,256.33 in outstanding section 7 expenses and dismissed his post-trial motion to rent out the jointly owned property.

In a Hague Convention return application, the court found that two children wrongfully retained in Ontario remained habitually resident in the United Kingdom.

Applying the hybrid habitual residence approach, the court held that annual vacation visits and a 29-day temporary stay in Ontario did not displace the children’s deep social, educational, and familial connections to the UK.

The court rejected the respondent’s Article 13 defences of consent or acquiescence, grave risk of harm, and child objection, finding the evidence of alleged abuse and coercive control unreliable in material respects and the children’s stated wish to remain in Canada insufficiently mature and not independent.

The court ordered the children’s return to the UK and treated the applicant’s undertakings regarding housing, transportation, rent, and school fees as binding if the respondent returns with them.

A complex family law trial involving a 13-year-old child (L.) born to unmarried parents who cohabited for approximately 7.5 years before separating in April 2020.

The case involved disputes over the validity of a March 2022 Separation Agreement, an alleged fraudulent "Cohabitation and Mortgage Agreement" parenting arrangements, child support, and division of a jointly-owned property (the Thornhill Property).

The trial revealed a pattern of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother, including physical assaults, property destruction, and verbal abuse.

The child was repeatedly exposed to this conflict.

The court found the father has serious anger management issues and likely an undiagnosed mental health disorder.

The mother was awarded primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility for the child.

The father's parenting time was limited to supervised virtual visits of 30 minutes every other week, with strict conditions.

The court imputed income of $200,000 to the father for child support purposes and ordered him to pay $1,659 per month commencing February 1, 2025 (increasing to $1,707 as of October 1, 2025).

The court enforced the property provisions of the Separation Agreement, ordering the father to pay the mother $250,000 plus prejudgment interest of $42,174.93 for her interest in the Thornhill Property.

The trial was marked by significant procedural challenges, including the father's disruptive courtroom conduct, multiple mid-trial motions, and extensive document management issues.

The respondent mother sought to stay the Court of Appeal's order requiring the return of a five-year-old child to the United Kingdom pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, pending her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The father had successfully appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed his application for the child's return, on the basis that the father had consented to or acquiesced in the child's retention in Canada.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in conflating consent to relocation with consent to retention.

The motion judge dismissed the mother's stay motion, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the child's return to the jurisdiction of habitual residence.

The applicant sought spousal support, unequal division of net family property due to the respondent's reckless depletion of assets, return of a trailer, post-separation adjustments, and divorce.

The respondent's pleadings were struck due to non-disclosure.

The court granted ongoing and retroactive spousal support at the high end of the guidelines, ordered an unequal division of net family property, finding the respondent's conduct unconscionable, ordered the return of the trailer or payment in lieu, and granted post-separation adjustments.

The divorce claim was severed.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant due to the respondent's bad faith and lack of disclosure.

The respondent husband brought an interim motion seeking spousal support and the release of funds from the sale of the matrimonial home to fund his litigation and business expenses.

The court found the respondent demonstrated a prima facie case of need for non-compensatory support, imputing a minimum wage income to him and ordering the applicant to pay $2,082 per month.

The court declined to release the full requested funds from the home sale due to the respondent's failure to provide business disclosure, but ordered $15,000 released specifically to pay his accountant to obtain and disclose those records.

The appellant (mother) wrongfully retained two young children in Ontario after travelling from Dubai, UAE, where the children habitually resided.

The respondent father applied under s. 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act for a return order.

The trial judge declined jurisdiction under s. 23 of the CLRA, finding the serious harm threshold was not met, and ordered the children's return to Dubai.

The Supreme Court of Canada, 5-4, dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge committed no palpable and overriding error in concluding the children would not suffer serious harm, that separation from a primary caregiver does not automatically satisfy the serious harm threshold, and that the father's undertakings regarding the mother's residency should be included explicitly in the return order.

The dissent would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence on both the likelihood and severity of harm.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the respondent (N.) was entirely successful.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $99,500, reflecting a reduction from actual time incurred.

The appellant (F.) argued for each party to bear their own costs or for a reduced award, citing excessiveness and limited means.

The Court of Appeal found no special circumstances to warrant either full indemnity costs or no costs, ordering the appellant to pay the respondent $50,000 in all-inclusive costs, consistent with costs following the result and reasonable expectations.

The appellant mother brought a motion for a stay of proceedings related to the Court of Appeal's decision, pending her leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The motion judge granted the stay, finding serious issues of public importance arising from the dissenting opinion, a risk of irreparable harm to the children if the stay was denied (potential separation from the primary caregiver and determination of parenting rights based on gender-based principles in a non-Hague Convention country), and that the balance of convenience favored granting the stay.

The stay was conditional on the mother filing her leave to appeal application within 45 days.

In this family law appeal, the appellant sought to enforce a daily financial penalty for non-disclosure, which had accumulated to $224,000.

The motion judge declined to enforce the disproportionate penalty and left the matter to the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found the order to be interlocutory and thus not appealable, quashing the appeal.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for the child's habitual residence to be Brampton, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for relief related to parenting issues arising from her move to Scarborough, including the child attending school there.

The court determined that it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the mother in Scarborough and attend school there.

The decision considered the mother's valid reasons for moving, the unsustainability of her commute from Brampton, and the impracticality of maintaining equal parenting time given the distance and the father's inability to relocate.

The court also ordered that the child attend only one daycare due to the pandemic.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings and impose a $224,000 penalty for alleged non-compliance with a previous disclosure order.

The court found that the respondent had substantially complied with the disclosure requirements, with only minor items outstanding, including an explanation for a $25,000 withdrawal made prior to separation.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that striking pleadings is reserved for egregious situations and that the applicant's requested relief was disproportionate and overly aggressive.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, arguing that the parties' three children, who were in his de facto care, were living in cramped conditions in his one-bedroom basement apartment while the applicant mother resided alone in the four-bedroom home.

The motion was deemed urgent due to the children's living situation, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and a recent suicide attempt by one of the children.

The court granted the father exclusive possession, prioritizing the children's best interests, and ordered the father to make periodic payments to the mother to assist with alternative accommodation.

The decision also included a strong admonition against rhetorical excess and irrelevant personal attacks in family law litigation.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion to strike the respondent's pleadings or for disclosure.

The court found the respondent's failure to produce basic financial disclosure over four years, despite multiple court orders, constituted bad faith and egregious non-compliance.

Applying section 24(8) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant full recovery costs in the amount of $43,000, payable immediately.

The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's pleadings for failure to produce financial disclosure, or alternatively, for an order for production with a daily penalty.

The court found that the husband had repeatedly failed to comply with five previous disclosure orders.

The court ordered the husband to provide the outstanding disclosure by a specified date, failing which he would be subject to a $500 daily fine payable to the wife.

Following the dismissal of a motion to remove the respondent's counsel in a family law proceeding, the respondent sought costs of $88,729.26 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties argued the quantum was unreasonable and sought to have costs fixed at $30,000 payable in the cause.

The court found the respondent's counsel's hours and rates to be somewhat excessive compared to the moving parties' counsel, but acknowledged the importance of the motion.

The court fixed costs at $50,000, payable forthwith, rejecting the moving parties' argument that payment should be deferred until the equalization payment was determined.

The wife and her boyfriend brought a motion to remove the husband's lawyer due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The boyfriend had a brief consultation with the lawyer for his own matrimonial matter, and the husband's answer in the current litigation alleged an affair between the wife and boyfriend and extravagant spending.

The moving parties claimed the lawyer breached duties of confidence, loyalty, and candour, and faced a potential conflict in cross-examining the boyfriend as a witness.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no confidential information was disclosed, the relationship between the wife and boyfriend was not confidential, and the two matrimonial litigations were not sufficiently related to create a presumption of conflict.

The court also found no breach of a limited duty of loyalty or candour, and no impediment to cross-examination.