Glenda Perry

This is a costs endorsement following motions for temporary parenting and support orders.

The respondent (mother) sought $7,000 in costs, while the applicant (father) requested no costs or $50/month.

The court applied principles of success, reasonableness, proportionality, and party conduct.

The mother was largely successful on several issues, including decision-making responsibility, child support for her daughter, a non-communication order, and obtaining government documentation for the child.

While there was divided success on parenting time, the mother was more successful overall.

Both parties failed to make settlement offers, and the court found the father's positions on several issues unreasonable and unrealistic, which unnecessarily increased the mother's costs.

Despite the father's limited means, the court ordered him to pay $4,800 in costs, payable at $150 per month.

The father (applicant) sought temporary unsupervised and eventually equal parenting time with his two-year-old son.

The mother (respondent) sought sole decision-making responsibility for the son, supervised parenting time for the father, and child support for both the son and her five-year-old daughter (K.), alleging the father had formed a settled intention to act as a parent to K. The mother also made serious allegations of child pornography viewing and family violence against the father, seeking a no-contact order.

The court found the mother's allegations of child pornography viewing and family violence credible for the purpose of the temporary motion, noting a significant power imbalance.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility for both children, ordered supervised parenting time for the father with the son by paternal family members (excluding the paternal grandmother), imposed a no-direct-contact order between the parents, and ordered the father to pay temporary child support for both children, finding a prima facie case of settled intention for K. The court also ordered the father to deliver government documentation for both children to the mother and restricted the mother from removing the children from Canada without consent or court order.

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 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 applicant father brought an urgent motion to restore an alternating week parenting schedule after the respondent mother unilaterally withheld the children due to concerns about his alcohol consumption and behaviour.

The court found that while the mother's concerns were supported by CAS records, suspending all access was not in the children's best interests.

The court ordered a gradual return to the alternating week schedule, subject to strict conditions including the father's use of a Soberlink alcohol monitoring system.

The mother brought a summary judgment motion seeking final custody of two children (ages 10 and 5), the ability to obtain government documentation and travel with the children outside Canada without the father's consent, and a prohibition on the father applying for or renewing government documentation.

The father, who had moved to Nigeria to work as a professor, opposed the custody motion seeking joint custody.

The mother also sought temporary orders for supervised access and child support.

The court granted final custody to the mother and made temporary orders for supervised access with passport deposit requirements and child support based on the father's stated income of $54,936 annually.

The court dismissed the mother's summary judgment motion regarding government documentation and international travel, finding genuine issues requiring trial on those issues.

This is a costs decision arising from a ten-day custody and access trial.

The respondent mother was successful in obtaining sole custody with sole decision-making authority on all parenting issues except vaccinations, which was awarded to the applicant father.

The mother sought costs of $59,085.72 at a 50% scale of recovery.

The court fixed costs at $25,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding the mother was the successful party entitled to costs but adjusting the award to account for divided success on the vaccination issue and applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking sole temporary custody of the parties' seven-year-old daughter, a restraining order against the father, and a no-access order.

The father opposed the motion and sought a 50/50 shared parenting arrangement.

The court found the mother's evidence of sustained spousal abuse credible, including detailed photographic evidence of injuries.

The father's denials were undermined by his proven falsehood regarding studded rings and his evasive responses to serious allegations.

The court granted sole temporary custody to the mother with highly supervised access for the father, a no-contact order, and a non-removal order, finding that the father's violence and abuse rendered him unsuitable for shared parenting at this stage.

A custody and access dispute between two parents of a six-year-old child.

The father sought sole custody with the child relocating to Orangeville, while the mother sought to maintain the status quo with the child remaining in her care in Toronto.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding that the child had been living in a stable home environment for four years, was thriving in her school and community, and that disrupting this arrangement would be traumatic.

The father was granted specified access on a two-week rotating basis.

A significant issue involved the mother's hesitancy regarding vaccinations; the court granted the father sole decision-making authority over vaccination decisions, including COVID-19 vaccination if it becomes available.

The father applied under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for an order compelling the return of three children to Buffalo, New York, their habitual residence.

The mother had removed the children to Toronto, Ontario in September 2018 following the breakdown of the parties' relationship.

The court found that the children's habitual residence was Buffalo at the time of removal, that the removal was wrongful, and that the mother failed to establish the Article 13(b) exception based on grave risk of harm.

The court ordered the return of the children to Buffalo with specified undertakings regarding custody, access, and support arrangements pending determination of temporary orders by the Erie County court.

The court dismissed the respondent father's claim for access to the parties' six-year-old child and his motion to set aside or change a restraining order.

The applicant mother sought costs of $16,196.29, while the father requested costs be limited to $1,000.

The court awarded costs to the successful mother in the amount of $8,400, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $200 per month commencing September 1, 2019.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a restraining order made on June 6, 2017, which prohibited him from having any contact with the applicant mother and their six-year-old child.

The father sought to set aside the restraining order, or alternatively, to terminate it or change it to permit supervised access to the child.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought its dismissal.

The court dismissed the father's motion to set aside the restraining order, finding he did not move promptly and lacked a satisfactory excuse for his non-attendance at the original hearing.

The court also found no material change in circumstances warranting termination of the restraining order.

Finally, the court determined that access was not in the child's best interests at that time, given the father's history of severe domestic violence toward the mother, lack of meaningful change, dishonesty, and non-compliance with court orders.

The court dismissed the access claim but left open the possibility of future applications if the father demonstrated sustained constructive change.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion without notice for custody of a child born in 2018, seeking a restraining order and police enforcement.

The respondent father opposed the motion.

The court found that the motion should not have been commenced as an urgent motion and that proper case management procedures should have been followed.

However, rather than dismiss the motion, the court treated it as a temporary motion on custody and access.

The court ordered a shared parenting arrangement with the child residing with the mother on alternate weekends and Tuesdays, and with the father for the remaining time.

The court found that both parents were significantly involved in the child's care and that the best interests of the child required continued contact with both parents.

The father brought a motion to change a child support order dated August 8, 2016, seeking to reduce his monthly support obligation from $773 to $150 per month based on claimed income of $8,652 per year, and to rescind all accumulated arrears.

The mother cross-moved to dismiss the motion and to increase support based on imputed income of $83,517 per year.

The court found the father intentionally underemployed, rejected his claims of medical disability, found his education/retraining plan unreasonable and unsupported, and determined the father had engaged in intentional deception and gamesmanship throughout the proceedings.

The court imputed income of $59,491 per year retroactive to March 17, 2015, resulting in increased monthly support obligations and a conduct order restricting future motions without court permission.

This is a costs endorsement following a three-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for three children.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $34,843 after obtaining a successful judgment on most issues, including sole custody of the children.

The respondent (father) failed to file costs submissions within the required timeline and subsequently sought his own costs in his response, which the court found procedurally improper and substantively without merit.

The court awarded costs to the successful party (the mother) in the amount of $22,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, taking into account the respondent's unreasonable conduct, limited financial circumstances, and poor litigation decisions.

A trial concerning parenting arrangements and child support for three children, including one with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The mother sought sole custody, restrictions on the father's contact, and retroactive child support.

The father sought joint custody with parallel parenting and extended access.

The court found a history of domestic violence by the father, his alcohol abuse, and his failure to support the children financially.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, ordered supervised access exchanges, restricted the father's contact with the mother, and ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2017.

The applicant father sought a declaration that the child's habitual residence was in Toronto, Ontario, thereby establishing jurisdiction for the Ontario Court of Justice to make custody and access orders.

The respondent mother had removed the child to Edmonton, Alberta in November 2016 without the father's knowledge or consent.

The court determined that the mother's removal was surreptitious and that the father did not consent to or acquiesce in the move.

The court found that the child's habitual residence remained in Ontario at the commencement of proceedings and that Ontario retained jurisdiction.

This is a costs decision following a Hague Convention application.

The father sought the return of two children wrongfully retained in Canada by the mother.

The father was entirely successful in his application, with the court finding overwhelming evidence that the children's habitual residence was the United Kingdom and that the father had not consented to or acquiesced in their retention in Canada.

The court awarded costs to the father on both a full recovery basis under the Family Law Rules and under Article 26 of the Hague Convention, finding the mother's conduct unreasonable in proceeding to trial without adequate evidence to support her claims.

Two consolidated child protection cases raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the interpretation of the five-day time limit in subsection 46(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent A.H. argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the Children's Aid Society failed to bring the matter before the court within five calendar days of the child's apprehension, as the fifth day fell on Easter Monday, a statutory holiday.

The court held that the provisions of the Legislation Act, 2006 apply to the time limit, extending it to the next day that is not a holiday when the deadline falls on a holiday or when the court office is closed.

The court found it had jurisdiction to hear both cases.