Heather R. Caron

The parties, who were married in Iran and moved to Canada, sought a divorce and corollary relief.

The applicant sought sole decision-making responsibility, restricted parenting time, enforcement of an Iranian marriage contract (maher), and retroactive child support based on imputed income.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility but allowed the respondent graduated unsupervised parenting time with strict safeguards against international abduction to Iran.

The court found the Iranian marriage contract valid and enforceable, ordering the respondent to transfer his interest in the matrimonial home to the applicant.

The court also imputed income to the respondent for a period of intentional unemployment and ordered retroactive child support.

Following a motion regarding the sale of the matrimonial home where the applicant mother was more successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought $12,451.47.

The court found divided success, no bad faith by the respondent father, and no offers to settle.

Considering the parties' financial positions (both on social assistance) and the partial success, the court awarded the applicant $4,500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant mother brought a motion to dispense with the respondent father's signature for the sale of the matrimonial home and to strike his pleadings for failing to comply with previous court orders.

The court found that the father had deliberately frustrated the court-ordered sale process by refusing to sign the listing agreement, insisting on a higher price, and interfering with the real estate agent.

The court granted the order dispensing with his consent.

However, the court declined to strike his pleadings, finding it to be an exceptional remedy, and instead ordered that he be barred from bringing further motions until he paid $8,000 in outstanding costs.

The respondent sought costs following motions where the parties had divided success.

The court noted that no offers to settle were exchanged and found that the respondent had behaved unreasonably by failing to comply with previous costs orders while simultaneously offering to purchase the matrimonial home.

Concluding that the respondent did not come to the court with clean hands, the court ordered no costs.