Gabriella Varsha Deokaran

Following a trial, the mother was ordered to pay $75,000 in costs to the father.

She failed to make timely costs submissions but was granted an extension after bringing a Form 14B motion and paying $3,500.

In her submissions, she argued the costs were too high and that the father's receipt of legal aid should be considered.

The court rejected most of her arguments but reduced the costs order to $62,500, finding that some of the unreasonable litigation conduct was attributable to her counsel's disorganization, for which the Law Society was seeking an interim suspension, and giving a partial discount for her limited ability to pay.

The mother (respondent in the main action) brought a motion to set aside a costs order of $72,000 and $3,000, and sought an extension of time to file her costs submissions, after missing the original deadline.

She claimed to have emailed an extension request that the court did not receive.

The court considered the motion under Family Law Rules, subrule 25(19), and principles for setting aside default judgments.

Despite the mother's history of non-compliance and issues with her counsel's conduct, the court granted a conditional extension, requiring the mother to pay $3,500 towards previous outstanding costs orders.

This payment, along with her costs submissions, would allow the court to consider changing or setting aside the original costs order.

The original costs order was suspended pending compliance with these conditions.

The father, Cletus Oppong Wiafe, sought costs after a two-week trial concerning parenting and child support.

The court found the father to be the more successful party at trial, particularly on the dominant issue of the child's primary residence.

The mother, Gifty Afoakwa-Yeboah, failed to make costs submissions and exhibited unreasonable litigation conduct throughout the case, including non-compliance with court orders, late filings, exceeding page limits, and making unsupported allegations.

Despite the mother's inability to pay, the court declined to discount the costs award due to her reckless and unreasonable conduct, emphasizing the need to uphold the integrity of the justice system.

The court awarded the father $3,000 for production motions and $72,000 for trial costs.

A non-party in an estate litigation matter brought a motion seeking the recusal of the presiding judge, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The non-party argued that the judge breached natural justice by disclosing an ex parte Mareva injunction motion to opposing counsel and dismissing it without reading the materials.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no cogent evidence to overcome the strong presumption of judicial impartiality, noting that the materials were reviewed, written reasons were provided, and the existence of the motion was public information.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking the recusal of the presiding judge on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The plaintiff failed to properly serve the motion on all interested parties, failed to file the motion record with the court, and failed to confirm the motion, in direct contravention of a prior court order.

The court dismissed the recusal motion on procedural grounds due to the plaintiff's clear disregard for court orders and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court rendered a decision on costs for two motions: a recusal motion brought by the Respondent, which was dismissed, and a temporary parenting motion by the Applicant and cross-motion by the Respondent, where the Applicant was largely successful.

The Applicant sought costs for both.

The court found the Respondent's counsel's conduct unreasonable, ill-advised, and non-compliant with court directions, particularly regarding the recusal motion and delays in filing.

The court awarded the Applicant fixed costs of $6,471.51 for the recusal motion and $20,000 for the temporary parenting motion, noting the Respondent's counsel's litigation tactics caused significant delay and complexity.

The trial concerned parenting and support orders for the parties' three-year-old daughter.

The child's primary residence was temporarily transferred from the mother to the father by court order due to the mother's non-compliance with previous orders and concerning conduct, including relocating the child without consent and failing to facilitate the father's parenting time.

The court found the mother's credibility to be severely undermined by her dishonesty, false allegations, and defiance of court orders.

The father demonstrated a greater ability to prioritize the child's best interests, facilitate the child's relationship with both parents, and comply with court directives.

The court applied the new amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act, emphasizing the child's physical, emotional, and psychological safety.

The appellant abandoned her appeal, and the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the appeal was meritless and brought solely to delay the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellant opposed, blaming her lawyer and citing financial inability.

The Divisional Court agreed with the respondent that the appeal lacked merit and was used as a delay tactic.

The court awarded the respondent $3,500 in costs, to be paid from the appellant's share of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant father brought a motion for the return of the child to the Greater Toronto Area and for primary care, after the respondent mother unilaterally relocated to London, Ontario in contravention of a temporary non-removal order.

The court addressed several evidentiary issues, including the admissibility of reply affidavits and hearsay statements.

Applying the Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley frameworks, the court found no compelling reason to sanction the mother's unilateral move on a temporary basis.

Considering the mother's defiance of court orders and misrepresentations, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to be placed in the primary care of the father pending trial, with the mother receiving alternate weekend access.

The mother was also ordered to disclose her current address.

The respondent (mother) brought a motion for the judge to recuse herself from hearing further matters in the case, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant (father) had filed an application seeking the return of a child to Ontario and to prevent the mother from removing the child without his consent.

The mother had taken the child to Ghana for five months without the father's consent and subsequently moved to Edmonton, Alberta.

The judge had made several orders including placing the child in the father's care pending the substantive motion.

The mother alleged bias based on the judge reviewing all materials despite her adjournment request, making findings of fact against her, denying procedural fairness, and making subsequent orders to enforce compliance.

The judge dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the mother had not met the high burden of establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant mother brought a motion for contempt against the respondent father, alleging he breached an interim access order by failing to provide her with access to their child on two weekends.

The court found that while the order was clear and the respondent had knowledge of it, the appellant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent intentionally breached the order, as the missed visits resulted from a severe communication breakdown between the parties and counsel, compounded by the appellant's COVID-19 self-isolation.

The motion for contempt was dismissed, make-up access time was ordered, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant mother sought to appeal an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of Justice that had dismissed her appeal from an interlocutory custody order of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal had previously declined jurisdiction, finding the order to be interlocutory.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that section 19(4) of the Courts of Justice Act precludes an appeal from an interlocutory order of a Superior Court judge made on appeal from an interlocutory order of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory scheduling order made by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

During a case management teleconference, the Divisional Court noted that applications for judicial review of interlocutory LTB decisions are usually dismissed for prematurity, but allowed the application to proceed.

A timetable for the exchange of materials was set on consent, and directions were given to ensure the LTB had an opportunity to participate.

A custody and access trial involving a high-conflict separation between parents of a young child.

The father sought sole custody and limited access for the mother, while the mother sought custody with equal time-sharing.

The court found both parents competent but determined the mother should have custody based on her demonstrated willingness to support the child's relationship with the father, contrasting with the father's initial proposal to relocate the child to New York with minimal maternal contact.

The court ordered alternate weekly time-sharing with the father paying child support and spousal support on a declining scale.

This trial addressed complex family law issues including access to the two children of the marriage, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant sought increased access, spousal support, and an equalization payment.

The court found the respondent had actively alienated the children from the applicant and demonstrated a disregard for their best interests.

The court imputed incomes to both parties, ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and calculated the equalization payment for net family property.

The respondent's claims for post-separation expenses were offset by occupation rent due to his exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The appellants appealed orders of the trial judge finding fraudulent misrepresentation and unconscionability in relation to three shareholders' agreements.

The appellants argued that rescission was only justified for the first agreement based on fraudulent misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the fraudulent misrepresentation justified rescission of all three agreements, and alternatively, that the second and third agreements were unconscionable and therefore also subject to rescission.

The court also rejected arguments regarding contract interpretation and procedural fairness.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $25,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant, Aryann Shalini Maharaj, sought full indemnity costs of $56,386.43 following an 11-day trial on custody, access, and property issues, alleging the respondent, Lincoln Wilfred-Jacob, acted unreasonably and in bad faith.

The respondent argued for no costs or minor costs due to financial burden.

The court, applying Family Law Rules 18 and 24, found the applicant was largely successful in the underlying trial but neither party's conduct amounted to bad faith, though the respondent acted more unreasonably.

Considering the complexity, the respondent's conduct in delaying the case, and proportionality, the court awarded the applicant $40,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The plaintiff requested authorization via teleconference to sign back an offer to purchase a disputed property.

The property was listed at $249,000 and an offer of $180,000 was received.

The plaintiff sought to counteroffer at $225,000 without disclosing the offeror's identity to the defendant, fearing interference.

The court authorized the plaintiff to sign back the offer at $225,000 or lower, provided that any resulting agreement of purchase and sale remains subject to court approval where the purchaser's identity must be disclosed.

The parties separated after a tumultuous six-year marriage.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of their child, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent father sought to maintain a joint custody regime and requested an unequal division of property.

The court found the father was engaging in alienating behaviours and granted sole custody to the mother, with the father's access conditional on his attendance at parental alienation counselling.

The court imputed income to both parties, awarded the mother past spousal support, and ordered an equal division of net family property, resulting in an equalization payment of $117,132.31 to the mother.

The landlord brought an unsuccessful motion to quash the tenants' appeal from an eviction order.

The tenants sought costs of the motion.

The court found that the landlord acted unreasonably by pursuing the motion when it knew the eviction order was based on the false premise that the tenants' complaints to government officials were unfounded.

The court awarded costs to the tenants in the amount of $17,337.71, reflecting the actual hourly rates charged by their counsel, which were lower than the maximum partial indemnity rates.