Gloria Antwi

The respondent sought to set aside the registration of a 2001 California child support order in Ontario, arguing lack of notice, no reasonable opportunity to be heard, and public policy concerns including income misattribution, disputed paternity, and delayed enforcement.

The applicant opposed, asserting proper notice and the respondent's deliberate avoidance of obligations.

The court found the respondent had proper notice and opportunity to be heard, and his credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistencies and bad faith conduct.

The court rejected the public policy arguments, emphasizing that this defense should not interfere with foreign courts' findings of fact when proper process was followed.

The motion to set aside was dismissed, and the registration of the California order was confirmed.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the applicant for the return of the parties' children to Nigeria.

The court found the respondent's conduct in unilaterally removing the children from Nigeria was unreasonable.

Crucially, the court found the respondent acted in bad faith by presenting a purported travel consent document that was not authentic and by intentionally deceiving the court regarding the father's consent.

Despite this finding of bad faith on a specific issue, and the applicant seeking full recovery costs of $79,900, the court applied principles of reasonableness and proportionality, considering the overall nature of the proceeding (a motion, not a trial) and the respondent's ability to pay.

The court awarded the applicant $25,000 in costs, payable in monthly installments.

The father brought a motion to enforce a Nigerian custody order and seek the return of the parties' two children to Nigeria after the mother unilaterally moved them to Ontario.

The mother brought a cross-motion for temporary custody, arguing the children would face serious harm if returned due to country conditions and alleged past domestic violence.

The court recognized the Nigerian order under s. 41 of the Children's Law Reform Act, found the children were wrongfully removed, and concluded the mother failed to establish a risk of serious harm under s. 23.

The father's motion was granted and the children were ordered returned to Nigeria.

The applicant father sought an urgent hearing for the return of his two daughters to Nigeria, alleging wrongful removal by the respondent mother.

The court, operating under COVID-19 protocols, determined whether the matter was urgent.

Despite the father's claim of international kidnapping, the court found the matter not urgent due to global travel restrictions and the children's safety and well-being being protected by remaining with the mother in Ontario.

The court emphasized that the urgency determination was summary and without prejudice to the substantive motion.

Following the dismissal of the respondent mother's motion to change the children's primary residence, the applicant father sought costs of $68,490.51 on a full recovery basis.

The court found that the father's bill of costs inappropriately included fees for the entire litigation rather than just the motion.

The court rejected the father's allegations of bad faith and unreasonable conduct by the mother.

Recognizing the importance of proportionality in family law matters, the court fixed costs at $6,500 inclusive, payable in installments.

The respondent mother brought a motion for a temporary order to change the children's primary residence from the applicant father's home in Waterford to her residence in Toronto pending trial.

The father had been granted temporary sole custody a year prior after the mother removed the children without consent.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the principle that established temporary primary residency orders should not be changed pending trial absent compelling evidence of absolute necessity.

The court found the evidence regarding the children's best interests to be incomplete and contradictory, making a change in the status quo inappropriate before a full trial.

A child protection case involving a four-month-old infant who suffered severe traumatic head injuries including subdural hemorrhaging, retinal hemorrhages, and brain damage.

The child was hospitalized after the father called an ambulance on October 2, 2015.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that both children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents disputed the cause of injury, with the father's expert suggesting a chronic medical condition (subdural hygroma) with spontaneous rebleeding, while the Society's expert concluded the injuries resulted from traumatic head trauma inflicted or inadequately protected against by the parents.

The court accepted the Society's expert evidence and found both children in need of protection.