Farrah Hudani

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.

The applicant father sought the return of his 16-year-old daughter to Puerto Rico under the Hague Convention.

The respondent mother opposed the application, arguing the Convention no longer applied because the child had turned 16, and alternatively, that the child objected to returning.

The court dismissed the application, finding that under Article 4, the Hague Convention ceases to apply once a child turns 16, depriving the court of jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would apply the Article 13 exception and refuse return, as the mature child had expressed a genuine and independent objection to returning to Puerto Rico due to allegations of abuse and a desire to remain in Canada.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

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.

Following a 15-year common-law relationship, the parties litigated issues of property division, spousal support, and child support.

The court found that the parties were engaged in a joint family venture, as the respondent had sacrificed her career to build the applicant's businesses and act as the primary caregiver.

The court divided the accumulated wealth equally, awarding the respondent half the value of the businesses.

The court also imputed an income of $689,000 to the applicant and awarded the respondent substantial retroactive and lump-sum prospective spousal support, along with ongoing child support.

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 moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a February 2025 decision and a motion to extend the time to seek leave to appeal two 2023 decisions.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions.

The court found the moving party failed to establish an intention to appeal within the required time, provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and failed to demonstrate the proposed appeal had merit.

Costs of $9,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The decision concerns a Hague Convention application by Mr. Patel for the return of his children to Morocco after their removal to Canada by Ms. Hamdaoui.

The court found that the children were habitually resident in Morocco at the time of removal, that Mr. Patel had and was exercising rights of custody, and that no defences to return (consent/acquiescence or grave risk of harm) were established.

The court ordered the return of the children to Morocco and set out undertakings and directions for the parties.

This was a costs ruling following a successful application by the father under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The court had previously ordered the return of the parties' child to Illinois, finding she had been wrongfully retained in Ontario by the mother.

The father sought full recovery costs of $36,356.06, while the mother argued that no costs should be payable due to her financial circumstances and her focus on the child's best interests.

The court found the mother's litigation conduct and her late-stage challenge to the child's habitual residence to be unreasonable, ultimately ordering her to pay the father $33,000.00 in costs.

The applicant father sought a "chasing order" for declaratory relief that the child, F.K., is habitually resident in Brampton, Ontario, and for the child's return from Poland under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Hague Convention.

The court found that F.K. was wrongfully retained in Poland by the mother and ordered the child's immediate return to Ontario.

The decision reviews the legal principles of habitual residence, wrongful retention, and the best interests of the child, and addresses the credibility of the parties' evidence.

The Father applied under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of the parties' child, Miraya Devi Chawla, to Champaign, Illinois, alleging wrongful retention by the Mother in Ontario.

The Mother argued that Ontario was the child's habitual residence or, alternatively, that returning the child to Illinois would pose a grave risk of harm due to alleged domestic violence and her uncertain immigration status.

The court found that Miraya's habitual residence was Champaign, Illinois, and that she was wrongfully retained.

The court also found that the Mother did not meet the high threshold for the Article 13(b) exception regarding grave risk of harm, especially with the Father's undertakings to mitigate risks.

The application for the child's return was granted.

The Applicant sought the return of the children to Singapore pursuant to the Hague Convention, arguing Singapore was their habitual residence.

The Respondent contended the children's habitual residence was Ontario, asserting the move to Singapore was temporary for family support during pregnancy.

The court applied the hybrid approach to habitual residence, considering all circumstances including parental intentions and the children's connections.

The court found that the parties' intention was always to return to Canada, supported by evidence such as storage of belongings and daycare registrations.

The Hague application was dismissed, and the Ontario court was found to have jurisdiction over custody and access, as the children were habitually resident in Canada.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2019 final consent order regarding parenting of their 8-year-old child.

The respondent father had withheld in-person parenting time from the mother for three years and was previously found in contempt.

The child exhibited severe behavioural issues and defiance toward the mother but not the father.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered a hybrid parenting plan, requiring immediate reunification therapy paid for by the father, 50/50 parenting time pending a review, and for the court to remain seized of the matter for one year to ensure compliance and monitor the child's best interests.

The Respondent mother and the Children's Lawyer brought a summary judgment motion against the Applicant father seeking sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children, child support, contribution towards s.7 expenses, no equalization payment, and dismissal of the father's spousal support claim.

The father, who is self-represented and suffers from significant disabilities, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that a fair and just determination could not be made due to insufficient evidence, particularly regarding the father's medical condition and financial disclosure, and the rushed scheduling of the motion.

However, the court issued interim parenting orders granting the mother sole decision-making and primary residence, with the father's parenting time to be in accordance with the children's wishes, including supervised contact for the younger child.

The court also ordered further disclosure and a settlement conference, declining to award costs to any party due to mixed conduct.

The applicant mother sought the return of her two children to Costa Rica under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, arguing they were habitually resident there and wrongfully retained in Canada by the respondent father.

The father contended the move to Costa Rica was temporary and the children's habitual residence remained Ontario.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determining habitual residence, considering parental intention and the children's acclimatization, and found that the children's focal point of life was Costa Rica as of August 11, 2023.

The application was granted, and the children were ordered to be returned to Costa Rica, as no exceptions to return applied.

The respondent moved to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction and to set aside ex parte orders from 2018 and 2019.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the ex parte orders, finding it was too late given the years of litigation abroad under the Hague Convention.

Regarding jurisdiction, the court found Ontario clearly had jurisdiction as the children were habitually resident there.

The court declined to rule on forum non conveniens (s. 25 CLRA) as premature, pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal in Morocco concerning the children's return, noting concerns about the UAE court's custody decision (gender bias, lack of best interests consideration, and recognition of Talaq divorces).

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the Applicant father's Hague Convention application for the return of his daughter to Florida.

The Respondent mother sought $64,379.73 in full indemnity costs and requested the order be enforceable as a support order.

The court applied the principles of costs in family law, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness.

It found the Respondent's counsel's billed time excessive and dismissed the claim for full indemnity costs, as no basis under the Family Law Rules was established.

The request to deem the costs a support order was also denied, as the original application did not involve support issues.

The court awarded the Respondent $35,000.00 in costs.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order and sought to adduce fresh evidence on the motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it did not satisfy the Palmer test as it was not relevant to the test for granting leave to appeal.

The motion for leave to appeal and requests for ancillary relief were also dismissed.

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

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his Hague Convention application seeking the return of his 3.5-year-old daughter from Toronto to Florida, arguing the application judge erred in determining the child's habitual residence.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's finding that the child's habitual residence was Toronto, concluding there was no wrongful removal or retention, regardless of the specific date chosen for determination.

The court also dismissed the father's arguments regarding the application judge's alleged overemphasis on parental intention, inadequate reasons, and allowing the mother to participate without filing an Answer.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant withdrew his family law application against the respondent's family members (the Gandhis) prior to trial.

The Gandhis and the respondent moved for costs of the withdrawn proceeding under Rule 12(3) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant argued that only the trial judge had jurisdiction to award costs.

The court held that a motion judge has jurisdiction to award costs when an application is withdrawn against co-parties.

Finding that the applicant had a bona fide claim but acted unreasonably by persisting with it long after receiving disclosure, the court awarded costs to the Gandhis and the respondent.