Iain D.D. Sneddon

The applicant, Ann Marie Alexander Bedell, sought interim sole decision-making responsibility for the children and child support based on imputed income to the respondent, Camiel Wayne Bedell.

The court declined to grant sole decision-making responsibility, finding no evidence that joint decision-making was not in the children's best interests.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his prior earning history, finding he was intentionally under-employed and that his decision to return to school was not a reasonable educational need in the circumstances.

Interim child support was ordered based on an imputed income of $137,610 per annum.

This endorsement addresses costs following a decision on two motions in a family law dispute.

The Applicant sought financial disclosure, interim child and spousal support, and litigation expenses under Rule 24(18) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the Applicant to be the more successful party, despite not achieving all requested relief and exhibiting some unreasonable behaviour (e.g., extraordinary support requests, misuse of credit card for legal fees).

The Respondent's failure to provide complete financial disclosure, delay in stating his support position, and unilateral termination of a credit card arrangement (potentially contempt of court) were deemed unreasonable.

The court awarded the Applicant $40,000 in all-inclusive costs, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness, and clarified that prior payments made by the Respondent towards the Applicant's legal and expert fees via credit card should be credited against the Rule 24(18) order, not the costs award.

The applicant brought motions for financial disclosure, interim child and spousal support, and interim disbursements for legal and expert fees in a high-net-worth family law dispute.

The respondent opposed the motions and filed late affidavit evidence.

The court struck the late and inadmissible evidence, ordered the respondent to produce the requested corporate and financial disclosure, and ordered interim child support of $7,207 per month and spousal support of $9,023 per month based on a three-year average income of $458,825.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay $150,000 for the applicant's expert fees and $75,000 for her legal fees under Rule 24(18) of the Family Law Rules.

This family law motion addresses conflicting requests regarding the matrimonial home, spousal support, child support, and an advance for legal expenses.

The applicant sought the sale of the matrimonial home and spousal support, while the respondent sought exclusive possession and child support.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding the respondent failed to discharge the onus to prevent sale, despite concerns for the children's mental health.

An advance of $40,000 from sale proceeds was granted to the applicant for legal fees.

The court ordered the applicant to pay child support based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines table amount due to insufficient evidence for a s. 3(2)(b) analysis.

Spousal support was ordered for the applicant at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, considering the long marriage, career trajectories, and unequal childcare responsibilities.

The parties brought competing motions for interim relief concerning the matrimonial home, child support, spousal support, and financial disclosure.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding the financial arrangement unsustainable for the respondent and the sale inevitable.

The applicant's motions for interim exclusive possession, interim child support, and interim spousal support were dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient evidentiary record and lack of full financial disclosure.

The court also declined to compel the applicant to obtain further business valuations or income analysis reports at his expense, noting the respondent could obtain her own.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion and defense of a cross-motion.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith by not consenting to an order regarding a property purchased with protected funds, unnecessarily complicating the matter.

The respondent's non-severable offer to settle was not considered a genuine compromise.

The court awarded the applicant $11,400 in costs, payable from the respondent's frozen corporate accounts.

The applicant brought a motion to add a newly purchased property to an existing non-dissipation order, arguing it was purchased with protected corporate funds.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to unfreeze his accounts and release funds, claiming he needed money for living expenses and corporate taxes.

The court granted the applicant's motion, finding the property was purchased with protected funds.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion, noting his failure to provide court-ordered financial disclosure had delayed the business valuation necessary to determine the equalization payment.

This endorsement addresses the costs of an appeal, which was dismissed, concerning a mobility issue where the respondent was permitted to relocate with the child.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of over $40,000, while the appellant argued for no costs or $7,500.

The court applied the Family Law Rules, particularly r. 24(1) and 24(11), finding that the appellant's pursuit of the appeal was not unreasonable.

The court noted the respondent's failure to make an offer to settle, which precluded full indemnity costs under r. 18(14), and found the time spent by the respondent's counsel to be excessive, disallowing costs for junior counsel's attendance.

The court fixed costs at $17,500 inclusive, to be set off against any remaining equalization payment.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement on costs following a decision where it dismissed the applicant's motion and application, finding that an Indian court had sole jurisdiction over the custody case.

The respondent, Hiral Gandhi, sought a cost award of $15,000, while the applicant, Vaibhav Mehta, argued for each party to bear their own costs.

The court found that the respondent was presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party and that her conduct was not unreasonable, distinguishing the case from precedents where costs were denied due to a party's unreasonable actions.

A cost award of $15,000 in favour of the respondent was deemed fair and reasonable.

The applicant father sought custody of his son and an order for the respondent mother to return the child to Ontario.

The threshold issue was jurisdiction, specifically whether Ontario or India had habitual residence over the child.

The court found that the mother's decision to remain in India with the child, coupled with the father's acquiescence or undue delay in challenging this decision, established India as the child's habitual residence.

Consequently, the Ontario court declined jurisdiction, dismissing the father's motion and application.

The appellant father appealed a family arbitration award that permitted the respondent mother to relocate with their child to Rochester, Minnesota, to accept a surgical oncology position at the Mayo Clinic.

The appellant argued the arbitrator misapprehended evidence regarding his ability to work in the United States, the mother's employment prospects in Ontario, and failed to give sufficient weight to the maximum contact principle.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the standard of appellate review, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the arbitrator's decision.

The court held that the arbitrator properly considered the child's best interests, the maximum contact principle, and the evidence of immigration experts.

The appeal was dismissed and the arbitration award was confirmed.

The parties separated and initially shared a 50-50 parenting arrangement.

Following the sale of the matrimonial home, the applicant father moved temporarily, and the respondent mother relocated to Dorchester, successfully obtaining an order to change the child's school.

On this motion, the court considered whether to maintain the week-about schedule.

The court ordered interim joint custody with primary residence to the respondent mother, finding the week-about schedule too onerous given the new school and residence locations, and granted the applicant father generous access.

The applicant brought a motion seeking interim spousal support, an order for the sale of the former matrimonial home, and related relief.

The respondent brought a responding motion seeking child support, exclusive possession of the home, and entitlement to the Child Tax Benefit.

The court found insufficient evidence to impute income to the applicant or support a child support obligation under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

Interim spousal support was ordered in the mid‑range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and the former matrimonial home was ordered listed for sale.

The respondent’s claims for child support and exclusive possession were dismissed, and the Child Tax Benefit was directed to be transferred to the respondent.