Glenda Perry

The mother sought costs following her success on the father's motion to change child support.

The court found that the father acted in bad faith by hiding his income, running a cash business, and lying about his employment status.

As a result, the mother was entitled to full recovery costs under subrule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded the mother $12,500 in costs, payable immediately, and ordered that the costs be enforceable as a support order by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.

On a motion to change child support, the moving party sought to reduce support to zero based on social assistance, alleged inability to work, and undue hardship.

The court held that where income had previously been imputed, the payor bore the burden of proving a material change and explaining why the original imputation should no longer stand.

The court found the moving party not credible, found the financial disclosure inadequate, rejected the medical evidence as insufficient to establish inability to work, and concluded that he was either earning or capable of earning the previously imputed annual income of $50,000.

The undue hardship claim under s. 10 of the guidelines was dismissed, but the monthly table amount was updated to reflect the new guideline tables effective October 1, 2025.

The court also ordered that the moving party obtain leave before bringing any future motion to change support.

This decision addresses costs in a family law matter involving wrongful retention of a child outside Ontario.

The court found the father acted in bad faith by retaining the child in Portugal contrary to court orders and awarded the mother full recovery costs for obtaining the child's return, including airfare expenses.

The court emphasized the high threshold for bad faith findings and distinguished bad faith from unreasonable conduct.

The decision also discusses the application of Family Law Rules subrules on costs, including reasonableness, proportionality, and sanctions for non-compliance with court orders.

The Ontario Court of Justice granted the respondent father an extension to file his Answer/Claim in a parenting and child support matter after missing the original 60-day deadline.

The mother sought costs of $10,000 for an uncontested hearing that did not proceed due to the father's delay.

The court applied the amended Family Law Rules and relevant case law on costs thrown away, finding the father in default and acting unreasonably by withholding the child and resisting enforcement of court orders.

The court awarded the mother $4,500 in costs for preparation and attendance on the adjourned hearing date, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness in costs assessment.

This decision addresses complex parenting and child support issues between Steven Thomas Skiffington and Christine Lucy Parsons (now MacDougall) concerning their three children.

The court incorporated the parties' agreement on decision-making and regular parenting time, then resolved outstanding disputes on summer parenting schedules, travel arrangements, transportation responsibilities, and potential parenting time changes upon relocation.

The court also determined retroactive child support obligations, including imputation of income due to unreported cash earnings, and apportioned section 7 expenses.

The judgment emphasizes the best interests of the children, the impact of family violence, and the necessity of clear, structured parenting terms.

It provides detailed guidance on travel consent, transportation sharing, and arrears repayment, balancing fairness and the parties' financial realities.

This decision addresses a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant to temporarily relocate with the parties' children.

The applicant sought $9,136 in costs, while the respondent argued for no costs.

The court applied the Family Law Rules regarding costs, including the principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour.

While the applicant's offer to settle engaged the presumptive costs consequences of Rule 18(14), the court partially rebutted this presumption.

This was due to the applicant's failure to obtain court authorization for relocation before notifying the respondent of her intent to move, which necessitated the respondent bringing an urgent motion.

The court ultimately awarded the applicant $5,000 in costs, a reduction from the amount sought, balancing the applicant's success with her conduct that contributed to litigation costs.

This endorsement addresses costs and a request for a leave order following motions to change a parenting order.

The applicant father's motion was stayed due to unpaid costs from previous litigation and was subsequently withdrawn.

The respondent mother successfully obtained changes to the parenting order and sought costs for the motions, as well as an order requiring the father to obtain court leave for any future motions.

The court awarded the mother $7,000 in costs, finding the father's conduct unreasonable and noting his history of non-payment.

Furthermore, the court granted the leave order to prevent further abuse of process and protracted litigation, given the father's past behaviour and failure to comply with previous cost orders.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a three-day trial where the paternal grandmother's claim for contact with the child and the mother's claim for a restraining order against the paternal grandmother were both dismissed.

Both parties sought costs against each other, with the paternal grandmother seeking $9,627 and the mother seeking over $70,000.

The court applied the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, considering offers to settle and the parties' financial circumstances.

The mother was deemed the successful party on the dominant issue of contact, while the paternal grandmother was successful on the secondary issue of the restraining order.

The court ordered the paternal grandmother to pay the mother $12,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments, taking into account the paternal grandmother's modest financial circumstances and her reasonable offer to settle.

The paternal grandmother (applicant) sought a contact order with her 6-year-old grand-daughter.

The mother (respondent N.J.) opposed this and sought a restraining order against the paternal grandmother.

The father (respondent T.S.) was in default.

The court applied the two-part test for grandparent contact, determining that a positive relationship did not exist at the time contact was terminated, and the mother's decision to deny contact was not arbitrary.

This was based on significant safety concerns in the paternal grandmother's home and community, her problematic parenting history, and a clear power imbalance and lack of trust between the parties.

The court dismissed both the paternal grandmother's claim for contact and the mother's claim for a restraining order, finding no sufficient grounds for the latter.

The applicant sought a restraining order against the second respondent, who is the applicant's aunt and the first respondent's current spouse.

The second respondent moved to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act to grant a restraining order where no parenting orders were in place or sought, and no child was subject to the proceeding.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim against the second respondent.

The applicant father sought an order to maintain the children's permanent residence in Schomberg, Ontario, following a unilateral move from Etobicoke.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for the children's return to Toronto, arguing the move was a relocation that significantly impacted her parenting time and decision-making authority.

The court found compelling circumstances for the father's move due to housing necessity and financial hardship.

Despite the father's non-compliance with relocation notice requirements and unilateral decision-making regarding school enrollment, the court permitted the temporary relocation, prioritizing the children's need for stable housing.

The mother's parenting time was adjusted to compensate for the loss of mid-week overnight visits.

The court emphasized that the father's conduct would be scrutinized at trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent father's Answer/Claim due to his breach of court orders for financial disclosure and child support, temporary child support with imputed income, a restraining order, and further financial disclosure.

The father consented to the restraining order and further disclosure.

The court found the father breached financial disclosure and temporary child support orders.

While declining to strike the father's pleadings as disproportionate, the court imputed an annual income of $60,000 to the father for temporary child support purposes, ordered temporary support retroactive to August 1, 2022, and imposed conditions on the father's ability to pursue his parenting time claim until he made a payment towards arrears and provided full disclosure.

The mother was awarded costs for the motion.

The applicant mother sought an order for security for costs and a pre-condition of leave for the respondent father to bring any future motion to change a support order.

The court reviewed the father's extensive litigation history, including repeated non-compliance with disclosure orders, late payment of costs, and withdrawal of motions on the eve of trial, which constituted an abuse of process.

Citing the Family Law Rules, the court affirmed its jurisdiction to impose such conditions to prevent further frivolous litigation.

The court ordered that the father must obtain leave, accompanied by evidence of payment of outstanding costs and an initial security for costs of $9,000, before bringing any motion to change.

If leave is granted, an additional $31,000 in security for costs would be required.

The mother was awarded costs for the motion.

This trial concerned parenting and child support for the parties' daughter, Melanie.

The father sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, alleging the mother was a flight risk and had poor judgment regarding Melanie's documents and travel.

The mother sought shared or sole decision-making and primary residence.

The court found the mother was not a flight risk and that the father had exaggerated or fabricated some claims, and that the paternal grandmother's significant involvement and negative views of the mother were detrimental to Melanie's best interests.

The court granted joint decision-making responsibility, with the mother having final say in case of disagreement, and ordered Melanie's primary residence to be with the mother.

Specific orders were made regarding document custody and travel restrictions.

Child support was also determined, with the father ordered to pay retroactive and prospective child support to the mother, and the mother to pay prospective child support to the father for a period.

The parties separated after an arranged marriage, with the mother alleging a history of family violence and coercive control by the father.

The father sought primary residence or shared parenting, while the mother sought primary residence, sole decision-making, and supervised parenting time for the father.

The court found the father had engaged in family violence, made baseless allegations to child protection authorities, and posed an abduction risk.

The court awarded the mother primary residence and sole decision-making, ordered supervised parenting time for the father, issued a final restraining order against the father, and ordered retroactive child support based on imputed income.

The applicant, Mr. Ali, brought a motion to change support and parenting terms.

The respondent, Ms. Laboni, brought a cross-motion for parenting.

Mr. Ali failed to comply with disclosure orders for his support motion and did not attend the focused hearing, leading to the dismissal of his support motion.

Ms. Laboni sought costs.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules and relevant case law, found Mr. Ali's conduct regarding the support issues unreasonable.

Considering factors such as the parties' behaviour, the complexity of issues, and the applicant's modest means, the court awarded Ms. Laboni costs of $3,600, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable in monthly installments.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant mother sought sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and retroactive and ongoing child support for the parties' two children.

The respondent father had ceased paying voluntary child support and failed to participate in the proceedings or provide financial disclosure.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, finding it in the children's best interests.

The court imputed income to the father due to his failure to disclose, ordering him to pay ongoing child support and $35,108.93 in retroactive child support, along with his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

A family law trial concerning decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support for a young child.

The court found credible evidence of intimate partner violence, coercive control, and inappropriate sexual conduct by the father, concluding that the child’s safety required strict supervision of parenting time.

The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility, authority over travel and identifying documents, and a restraining order limiting the father’s proximity and communication.

Applying the Drygala framework, the court found the father intentionally underemployed and imputed income progressively over three years for child support purposes.

This trial concerned parenting and child support arrangements for two children.

The father sought joint decision-making and shared parenting, while the mother sought sole decision-making and a more limited parenting schedule for the father.

The court found the father not credible, citing his history of family violence, non-compliance with court orders, and attempts to conceal income by operating businesses under another's name.

The court imputed a higher income to the father and ordered him to pay retroactive child support and the full amount of special and extraordinary expenses.

The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, with a structured parenting time schedule for the father that was less than he sought, particularly for the younger child.

The Ontario Court of Justice rendered a costs endorsement following motions for temporary parenting and support orders.

The respondent mother, who was largely successful on the underlying motions, sought $13,000 in costs.

The applicant father opposed the amount and requested installment payments.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, found the mother to be the successful party.

It considered the father's unreasonable conduct, including unjustifiably overholding children, attempting to exclude the mother from their lives, failing to pay child support, and breaching a court order.

Despite both parties failing to make offers to settle, the court awarded the mother $10,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments of $300.