Faryal Rashid

This endorsement addresses costs following a parenting motion where both the Applicant Father and Respondent Mother sought costs on different bases, claiming substantial success.

The motion concerned primary residence, parenting schedule, a therapeutic order, and the presence of a paternal grandparents' dog.

The court found that neither party achieved a result as good as or better than their offers to settle.

A significant factor in the costs decision was the parties' intransigence, particularly regarding the dog issue, and their use of surreptitious recordings.

The court emphasized that such recordings foster deceit and hinder productive discussions, generally not serving the child's best interests.

Given the mixed success, mutual intransigence, and problematic litigation conduct, the court ordered no costs to either party.

Following a seven‑day trial concerning parenting, support, and related issues for a young child, the court determined that both parents were capable caregivers and that allegations of abuse against the father were not substantiated by professional evidence or child protection authorities.

Applying the statutory best‑interests framework, the court ordered a shared parenting regime transitioning from a 2‑2‑3 to a 2‑5‑5‑2 schedule with joint decision‑making responsibility and specific tie‑breaking mechanisms.

The court declined to impute income to either party, finding the mother’s limited employment justified by medical evidence and determining that funds advanced to the father by his parent were loans rather than income.

Child support was ordered using the shared‑custody formula, and spousal support was awarded for a fixed four‑year term.

Claims for retroactive spousal support and various additional relief were dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court.

On consent, the Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, set aside the lower court's decision, and remitted the matter back to the Superior Court in Milton for the scheduling of a case conference.

No costs were ordered.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, retroactive support, and security for support.

The parties separated after a 15-year marriage with no children, and there was a significant income disparity between them.

The court found the wife had a needs-based entitlement to support but declined to base the quantum on the husband's anomalous 2020 income or to order a 50/50 net disposable income split.

The court imputed an income of $60,000 to the wife and based the husband's income on his 2019 earnings of $280,000, ordering interim spousal support of $5,000 per month retroactive to the date of notice.

Claims for further retroactive support were dismissed as premature pending full financial disclosure.

The applicant father brought a motion for access in a longstanding family law dispute involving allegations of parental alienation.

The court found that the respondent mother had been wrongfully withholding access and obstructing the reunification process with the court-appointed therapist.

The court ordered both parties to continue attending co-parenting sessions, follow the therapist's recommendations, and directed that no further motions be brought without leave.

The respondent was ordered to pay $7,500 in costs due to her refusal to work toward reunification.

The applicant father sought to increase access to his 8-year-old daughter following a period of estrangement and resistance.

The court reviewed the joint recommendations of the family's mediator and the child's psychotherapist, who noted the child's severe anxiety and enmeshment with the respondent mother.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule leading to full weekend visits, along with behavioral expectations for the child and mandatory co-parenting and individual therapies for the parents.

The applicant father sought to expand his access to his 8-year-old daughter to a full weekend with a 'black-out' period preventing communication with the respondent mother.

The child had been strongly resisting access visits, which the court found was tolerated and potentially encouraged by the mother.

The court ordered the parties to continue working with a parenting mediator to gradually increase the frequency and length of visits.

The court also ordered the mother to take assertive steps and impose tangible consequences to manage the child's behaviour and promote the access visits, warning that a black-out period would be considered if access did not improve.

The applicant father brought a motion for the resumption of access to his 8-year-old daughter, which had been suspended following a physical altercation in June 2019.

Following the involvement of a parenting mediator, the parties agreed to resume in-person access visits.

The court ordered a specific schedule for the initial visits, with subsequent expansion to be guided by the mediator's recommendations.

The court also made orders regarding the apportionment of section 7 expenses for the child's therapy.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' four children attend school for in-person learning and that parenting transitions take place at the school.

The respondent father, a medical doctor, opposed in-person learning due to COVID-19 risks and the children's alleged history of respiratory issues.

Applying the Zinati factors, the court found no compelling medical evidence that the children were at increased risk and concluded that the benefits of in-person learning, including structure and peer interaction, outweighed the risks.

The court ordered the children to attend school in-person and requested further submissions on the issue of parenting transitions.

The applicant father sought resumption of access to his 7-year-old daughter after an altercation led to the child's refusal to see him.

This was the third hearing of the motion, following previous decisions that the respondent mother had wrongfully withheld access and that mediation was imperative.

A parenting mediator provided a progress report indicating positive developments, including daily video calls and two successful face-to-face visits.

The court ordered the continuation of mediation, addressed minor issues regarding fees and communication, and scheduled a further hearing for October 2020 to review progress.

The Applicant Father sought resumption of access to his daughter, which had ceased after an altercation.

The court, following an earlier decision finding the Respondent Mother wrongfully withholding access, noted progress in virtual access and mediation.

However, it also addressed troubling behavior from both counsel and the Mother's non-compliance with a previous cost order.

The court ordered the Mother to pay outstanding costs, for parties to continue mediation, and scheduled a further return of motion to address access.

The applicant sought urgent relief for the resumption of access to his 7-year-old daughter after a 9-month cessation following a physical altercation during an access transition.

The respondent opposed, citing the child's trauma and anxiety, relying on reports from a pediatrician and social worker.

The court found the reports to be one-sided and unreliable, and criticized the respondent for obstructing mediation and failing to encourage access, deeming her actions a "wrongful retention" of the child.

The court ordered immediate daily virtual access and mandated mediation, with costs awarded against the respondent.

The applicant husband commenced a family law case solely to obtain a divorce, but subsequently failed to participate or provide financial disclosure.

The respondent wife proceeded to an uncontested trial seeking corollary relief including equalization, post-separation expenses, and spousal support.

The court imputed an annual income of $90,000 to the husband based on past earnings and ordered him to pay equalization and post-separation expenses.

Due to a real risk of non-payment, the court awarded lump sum spousal support of $201,330.

To enforce the judgment, the court granted a vesting order transferring the husband's interest in the matrimonial home to the wife.

The applicant sought equalization of net family property, but the respondent argued the claim was statute-barred due to a limitation period, asserting an earlier separation date.

The court bifurcated the issue of the date of separation.

The applicant claimed reconciliation and cohabitation from May 2009 to January 2011, while the respondent maintained separation since August 2004 with no reasonable prospect of resuming cohabitation.

The court found the parties separated in August 2004 and did not reconcile, dismissing the applicant's claim regarding the later separation date.

A trial concerning custody, access, and child support for Eden Jade Oliveira-Blackett, born July 6, 2016.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with detailed access restrictions based on the respondent father's work and volunteer coaching schedule.

The respondent sought joint custody with primary residence to the mother.

The court found that sole custody with the applicant was in the child's best interests, citing the respondent's poor communication, inability to cooperate on significant parenting decisions (particularly regarding the child's baptism and medical care), and his pattern of prioritizing his own interests over the child's welfare.

The court imputed income to the respondent and ordered child support and section 7 expense sharing.

The applicant, Beverley Hathway, sought spousal support, medical/dental coverage, life insurance designation, and costs from the respondent, Richard Hathway.

The trial proceeded undefended due to the respondent's failure to deliver an Answer or file a Financial Statement.

The court found the applicant entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support, having suffered economic disadvantage by resigning from her employment to reside with the respondent in Florida and experiencing financial hardship upon separation.

A lump sum spousal support of $60,019.00 was awarded, along with orders for the respondent to maintain medical and dental coverage, irrevocably designate the applicant as a life insurance beneficiary to the extent of the support obligation, and establish a first charge on his RCMP pension survivor benefits.

The applicant was also awarded costs on a full recovery basis due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct and lack of participation.

The Applicant mother and Respondent father brought motions for interim access to their 15-month-old child.

The mother sought temporary custody and limited access for the father, citing breastfeeding and separation anxiety.

The father sought increased parenting time, including an additional overnight.

The court rejected the mother's arguments regarding breastfeeding and anxiety, finding her not credible.

The court determined that increased parenting time with the father and his extended family was in the child's best interests, granting the father's requested schedule.

A s. 30 assessment was ordered, with costs to be shared equally.

The applicant sought divorce and equalization of net family properties.

The respondent agreed to divorce but requested an unequal division of property.

The court granted the divorce and determined the date of separation as December 31, 2010.

The court calculated the net family properties and ordered an equalization payment from the respondent to the applicant, rejecting the respondent's request for an unequal division under section 5(6) of the Family Law Act, finding no unconscionability.

A deduction was made from the equalization payment for funds improperly taken by the applicant.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement on costs following a decision where it dismissed the applicant's motion and application, finding that an Indian court had sole jurisdiction over the custody case.

The respondent, Hiral Gandhi, sought a cost award of $15,000, while the applicant, Vaibhav Mehta, argued for each party to bear their own costs.

The court found that the respondent was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party and that her conduct was not unreasonable, distinguishing the case from precedents where costs were denied due to a party's unreasonable actions.

A cost award of $15,000 in favour of the respondent was deemed fair and reasonable.

The applicant father sought custody of his son and an order for the respondent mother to return the child to Ontario.

The threshold issue was jurisdiction, specifically whether Ontario or India had habitual residence over the child.

The court found that the mother's decision to remain in India with the child, coupled with the father's acquiescence or undue delay in challenging this decision, established India as the child's habitual residence.

Consequently, the Ontario court declined jurisdiction, dismissing the father's motion and application.