Howard Jacob Feldman

The court determined costs following pre-trial motions where both parties sought numerous heads of relief.

The court found the Applicant primarily responsible for the excessive and disproportionate time and resources spent due to consistently unreasonable positions and refusal to compromise.

The Respondent was deemed the successful party on key issues, including the sale of the matrimonial home and disclosure, and bettered their offers to settle.

Despite the Respondent seeking "full recovery" costs, the court applied principles of proportionality and reasonableness, noting the Respondent also raised an inordinate number of issues.

The Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent $35,000 plus HST for a total of $39,550.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought urgent motions regarding parenting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The primary unresolved issues were whether the applicant's adult daughter, an ICU nurse, should self-isolate from the children during parenting time, and where the children should reside if a household member exhibited COVID-19 symptoms.

The court ruled that the adult daughter did not need to self-isolate, emphasizing adherence to public health protocols and the lack of medical evidence supporting isolation.

For the second issue, the court directed parents to seek medical advice and follow Canada Public Health Protocols.

The applicant sought to vary a consent order regarding custody, access, and child support for two children, requesting equal time-sharing and divided decision-making.

The respondent opposed any changes.

The court found a material change in circumstances, primarily due to the applicant's significantly improved mental health and the children's expressed wishes for more time with their mother.

Applying the 'best interests of the child' test, the court granted the variation, ordering joint custody with equal time-sharing and divided decision-making authority for medical, dental, and educational matters.

Child support was reserved for further agreement or hearing.

The Applicant and Respondent brought motions for interim custody, access, and support.

The court addressed the temporary parenting plan, child support, and spousal support.

The parties had been living in a "nested" home post-separation, which led to significant conflict and negative impact on the children.

The court adopted a modified version of the Applicant's proposed parenting plan, which allocated more parenting time to the Applicant, and ordered the Respondent to attend counselling with a professional parenting specialist to improve his relationship with the children.

Child support was ordered based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and interim spousal support was ordered at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The court also made consent orders regarding the sale of the matrimonial home and division of proceeds.

A father sought to change a consent custody and access order regarding his son, seeking sole custody and restricting the mother's access.

The parents had moved to Barcelona, Spain with their son to attend a prestigious football school.

The mother subsequently refused to return to Spain and withheld the child.

The father brought motions in both Ontario and Spain.

The court determined that Ontario lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion to change, as the child was habitually resident in Spain.

The court declined to exercise jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act and stayed the Ontario motion, reverting to the original consent order of February 2013 as a holding order pending resolution in Spain.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion brought by the respondent mother seeking a temporary order preventing the applicant father from traveling outside Canada with their five-year-old child.

The motion was dismissed after an oral hearing.

The father sought full recovery costs of $6,655, while the mother requested no costs be awarded.

The court found the father was the successful party and awarded costs, but slightly discounted the award due to the father's contribution to the poor family dynamic.

The mother acted unreasonably by surreptitiously recording a conversation with the father and misrepresenting the contents of the audiotape to obtain an adjournment that would have cancelled the planned trip.

Following competing disclosure motions in a family law proceeding, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant had obtained extensive disclosure orders while the respondent achieved minimal success and had withdrawn the majority of her disclosure requests shortly before the hearing.

The court found that the respondent’s pleadings and expansive initial disclosure requests had significantly increased the costs of the motion and that her contempt allegations against the applicant were unsuccessful.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and relevant Ontario jurisprudence, the court determined that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate despite the respondent’s claim of inability to pay.

Costs of $21,000 inclusive of HST were ordered payable by the respondent within 30 days.

The parties brought competing motions for disclosure in a family law property dispute arising from cohabitation.

The respondent sought declarations of disclosure non-compliance and extensive additional production, while the applicant sought disclosure relating to the respondent’s financial affairs and property claims.

The court dismissed the respondent’s primary request concerning alleged failure to disclose a third-party lawyer’s file and denied most of her additional requests for disclosure.

Extensive disclosure was ordered from the respondent concerning property ownership, financial records, immigration files, business income, and other matters relevant to her broad claims.

Limited disclosure was ordered from the applicant, and the remaining relief in the motions was dismissed.

Following trial reasons granting judgment to the plaintiffs and dismissing a motion brought by a defendant, the court addressed entitlement and quantum of costs.

Applying rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court found the successful parties presumptively entitled to costs.

The court concluded that the primary defendant had acted in bad faith through conduct including unfounded allegations of fraud and conspiracy, misleading the court in a Mareva injunction motion, and refusing to comply with a memorandum of understanding.

Substantial indemnity costs were therefore warranted.

The defendants were ordered jointly and severally to pay the plaintiffs and intervenors full recovery amounts for fees and disbursements.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce a Memorandum of Understanding resolving disputes arising from the breakdown of a common law relationship and corporate control over a property‑holding company.

The defendant argued the MOU was merely a framework for future agreements and that it had been signed under economic duress caused by earlier court orders and the threat of eviction.

The court found the MOU constituted a final and binding settlement agreement, noting the parties’ clear contractual language, extensive negotiations, and the defendant’s subsequent reliance on the agreement.

Allegations that the agreement was procured under duress or that earlier court orders were obtained by fraud were rejected.

The defendant’s motion to set aside prior orders was dismissed and the settlement was enforced.